Sunday, October 20, 2013

No Riot, Lots of Rangers


UMass Southwest Towers, built 1963

UMass Police Department did not need riot gear last night, Mass State Police and Amherst Police Department were not required for backup and the horse patrol with their majestic mounts did not have to push back a large unruly crowd of fired up youth.



In other words, no Red Sox riot last night. 

The rain of course helped.  A few minutes before midnight, with the game down to the final three outs, the cloudy conditions gave way to a decent downpour.  Not a deluge, but enough to make you think twice about dawdling outdoors unprotected.  And no, alcohol does not count. 

At 11:57 PM (with the game outcome now obvious) UMPD command issued the bulletin:  "All cadets remain at your posts.  Do not take midnight break."  A few moments later the game finishes and a collective cheer could be heard echoing around the Southwest Towers.

At 12:25 AM UMPD command issues another bulletin:  "Hold your positions for another 15 minutes."

And at 12:45 AM the order to stand down and "report back to your stations for reassignment." 

But then, at 12:58 AM:




And again, at 12:59 AM:




25 comments:

Dr. Ed said...

Well, I'll give credit where credit is due -- fascism works.

In Italy, it got the trains running on time, in Germany it got the economy going again, and at UMass it stopped the rioting.

It very much comes at a price, mind you -- the price paid at UMass has been both the complete elimination of any scintilla of the traditional collegiate experience and the total abandonment of any presumption of student development, they are abusing the Mental Health Laws to the point were even a devout member of the Soviet Politboro would blush, but hey -- ACT 'n' Enku have finally "made the students behave."

The ends justify the means -- and no one cares. Bill Newman and hence the ACLU clearly doesn't --- and as a result the Amherst, UMass & Hadley cops treat UM kids worse than Bull Connor's cops ever dreamed of treating African Americans. To those of you police officers reading this -- exactly what is the distance the statute requires a license plate to be visible at?

Yes -- 60 feet.

I was once stopped because mine wasn't visible at 6000 feet. Yes, that's over a mile... I only wish I could make stuff like this up...

But it's worse -- UMass is doing upwards of three involuntary psych commitments per day, there are some real ethical issues all around on stuff like this, and I personally know of things that UMass admin folk could go to JAIL for.

But hey, no one cares. The ends justify the means, results matter, we don't care how they were obtained.

Princess Enku Rules!

(BTW -- I expressed these concerns to her, and while I was still a student. Unlike the people who attack me, I either say things to people's face or in a personal (signed) email to them -- offering to say it to their face. For what it is worth...)

Walter Graff said...

"To those of you police officers reading this -- exactly what is the distance the statute requires a license plate to be visible at?"

Not exactly Ed. A plate must be illuminated at night so as to be visible from 60 feet. In daylight it already is. Your 6000 claim sounds like a bad drug experience or you are mad because you got a summons for something obstructing your plate.

No where in General Law Section 6 Chapter 90 Title XIV Part I which pertains to visibility does it make any claim you make.

Often when people give police officers shit they get tickets and then go and spout off ridiculous things about why they got the ticket. I know, I used to go to court and hear the stories. I hope you saved a copy of this supposed "6000 foot" summons because it stinks like a fish story.

Good preventative policing is not fascism. Police work very hard at what they do and rarely get credit. You complain about wild students and when someone finally does something to curb the tide you blame police.

College pride? Blame UMASS culture, not police. The student body would rather binge drink and do drugs all night. Group pride went out the door when texting became the standard form of communication for our youth who can't even form a proper sentence these days.

Next Friday take a visit to Panda East and watch how the females dress in clothes that $20 whores in Springfield might wear. Then they sit down and feast on fish bowls of liquor. You want to find blame, start with the family these kids come from and a culture that teaches them to act and dress like this.

There was a day when a cop was a cop, today they are forced to be everything from social workers to babysitters. Spend one shift in a police car and your uneducated view of law enforcement and what a police officer is asked to do beyond his duty every single day will change.

Anonymous said...

...go and spout off ridiculous things...

Ridiculous things? Like claiming that those poor drunken UMass kids are treated worse than peaceful civil rights marchers getting attacked by fire hoses and German shepherds?

Nah. Nobody could be dense enough to claim something as nonsensical and insulting as that...

The Juggernaut said...

It's not college pride, Walter, it's poor parenting. And rather than your generation owning up to a portion of that, you are pushing it on the rest. Did you stop to reflect on why nothing occurred until the CH22 van showed? The news expected something, though such a small proportion of students take part in it. It's viewed, broadcasted, then expected. It is the outside, archaic view that this is UMass's "culture", and its perpetuation by critiques such as yourself is just as bad as those who celebrate the past party days of the university.


I did do a ride in an APD police car. I did one with Boston and the MSP. Two of the three officers (lieutenants) agreed that the drinking age made little impact on collegiate behavior.

Dr. Ed said...

Not exactly Ed. A plate must be illuminated at night so as to be visible from 60 feet.

Maybe it's a DMV reg, but I did find something that said "readable" at 60 feet. It was harassment, nothing less.

I hope you saved a copy of this supposed "6000 foot" summons because it stinks like a fish story.

There was no summons. Nor were there a lot of other things including a vehicle similar to mine which had allegedly outrun the officer earlier that evening.

peaceful civil rights marchers

They were criminals -- they were violating municipal ordinances that prohibited them from assembling in groups of more than 2 or 3 without a parade permit -- and they refused to disperse when lawfully ordered to do so.

I'm not saying that what they did was wrong, only that it was illegal -- "illegal" being defined as violating lawful statutes. And they refused to comply with the orders of police officers, which is also illegal.

Again, I'm not saying "wrong", only "illegal."

The difference between then and now, however, is that they were only arrested for actual crimes -- where the UMPD is now fabricating nonexistent crimes for psych arrests. I firmly believe that there will be a Federal Grand Jury asking questions about this sort of thing, sooner rather than later.

Anonymous said...

Hey Ed just an FYI, it doesn't make much difference if you sign your name or tell someone to their face because you're still nothing but a fuckin' nut! Now people know what name to use when they laugh about you.

Anonymous said...

Wally are for real? You got some serious sexuality issues there bud. Besides when was the last time you found a twenty dollar hooker around here? That's a helluva good deal in today's market.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Idiot,

How would you KNOW if UMass is sectioning kids? And considering the suicide and attempted self harm rate, if they weren't, it would be neglect.

Paul Vlach said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul Vlach said...

Ed,

"UMPD" is not "doing" the committals... the trained and certified Mental Health staff do. The cops just stand by, assure the safety of all, and make sure that AFD gets them loaded up safely. You don't say 'AFD" commits them... get your target right.

Dr. Ed said...

Part 1 of 2 Two of the three officers (lieutenants) agreed that the drinking age made little impact on collegiate behavior.

I firmly believe that it makes it WORSE -- think about this for a minute, how do you logically explain to someone that because they are 18 they should be held to adult responsibilities, that they should act like an adult, but that they aren't old enough to be treated like an adult, i.e. drink adult beverages?

The argument could be made that -- much like the speed limit used to be posted at 5-10 MPH lower than it was both intended to be and would be enforced at, setting the drinking age first at 20 and then at 21 was intended to actually have it set at 18.

Two compromises have been kicked around and may be worth reconsidering -- Federal law notwithstanding -- in light of the Marijuana referendum which literally means that the 20-year-old caught with a beer gets arrested & has a criminal record while the same 20-year-old can blow pot smoke in a cop's face and the worst that will happen is a $100 civil ticket which apparently can be ignored with impunity.

First was the "drink or drive" option -- as many college kids neither have cars nor are driving, and as this was all supposed to be about drunk driving, offer an option where they can have their driving privileges inactive (not "suspended" but "inactive" like one can do with a bar license) and instead get a "drinking license" which they can either return for their "driving" license if desired or which becomes that at age 21.

A second related proposal, which I had issues with because of the Orwellian overtones, was based on the NY State driving laws and how persons with a NY state driver's license but under a certain age aren't allowed to drive in NY CITY unless they got a *second* license and this second license could be lost if the kid did something stupid.

(As one who has driven large trucks through downtown Boston (and who always insisted on loading it MYSELF if I was going to be on the old Southeast X-Way), I never understood why driving in NYC was so special -- but apparently it is.)

It also didn't help that Tom Aceto was behind this -- some of you may remember him in his later position at North Adams State/MCLA, and it is not lightly that I say that Enku Gelaye is worse than "Uncle Tommie" but that is my personal & professional opinion.

Then - as now - public higher ed isn't 50/50 male/female -- it was 60/40 male back then, it now is 60/40 female (headed toward 70% female) and a lot of college kids date kids who aren't attending college -- in many cases these are quite serious relationships that lead to marriage after graduation -- and there is an equity issue here that would have to be addressed somehow, as would students at the other 4 colleges, but that is a secondary issue.

Imagine, if you will, that UMass issued "drinking licenses" -- perhaps in cooperation with the DA & APD and an agreement to exercise "proprietorial discretion" and not enforce the drinking age law if one had one of these licenses -- which would be like a gun permit, which can be revoked for cause.

(Continued in part 2)

Dr. Ed said...

Part 2 of 2

I believe it would be legally permissible to do this because MA has (at least) two sodomy statutes on the books, as well as both an adultery and blasphemy statute, and those aren't being enforced...

This would be a license to *consume*, not purchase -- although perhaps purchase at approved bars (which could then become "unapproved" if they did something like a Barney Day Blowout -- you'd have to have some due process of some sort, but I'm sure that the Amherst Selectboard could fit that into their agenda should a bar owner wish to appeal the Police Chief's decision to "unapprove" their establishment.

This would do a lot of things -- first it would legitimize the now-quite-unethical practice of universal alcoholism screening (i.e. the "My Student Body" web-administered psych exam that UM freshmen have to complete before being permitted to register for spring classes).

Assuming that there is any merit in MSB, having it as part of an optional "drinking license" abates the ethical issues. Likewise if there is any merit in alcohol education (and there actually may be) as long as you aren't too sophomoric and make it an understanding and not memorization of trivia exam, you could require that knowledge to get this license.

And where UMass simply can't kick a hundred kids out (let alone a thousand), UM could suspend a thousand of these licenses without a problem.

In fact, there could be a very easy way for police officers and others to deal with this -- snip a corner off of it as a warning and if someone looses all four, they have to go get a new one -- and explain to UM what happened.

This all is doable -- if anyone ever wanted to do it. Or you can keep bailing against the wind.

Never forget that average speeds went down when rural interstates went from 55 MPH to 65 MPH -- this is statistically valid data largely from electronic monitoring loops in the highway -- and it makes sense in that it (and the end of the 50% compliance with 55 MPH rule) enabled the cops to ignore those folk going 70-75 and go after the folsk going 90 (and with whom they often had other issues upon stopping them).

I have long felt that if town & gown permitted the UM kids to drink and to be loud -- but established firm limits -- e.g. no amplified sound after 10 PM weekdays, Midnight on Fri/Sat, no noise at all after 11PM/1Am -- if there were to be a comprimise of this sort, it would work.

Or you can have fascism.

Anonymous said...

"I firmly believe that there will be a Federal Grand Jury asking questions about this sort of thing, sooner rather than later."

And I firmly believe that you would look simply fabulous in a tinfoil hat. Fabulous!

Dr. Ed said...

There are three specific problems of the 21-year-old drinking age that I suggest people think about.

First, exactly how does one "drink responsibly" if one is not supposed to drink in the first place? It is the same issue as promoting abstinence as the only form of sex education -- if all you are told is not to do something, where exactly is the dividing line between doing it responsibly and doing it irresponsibly?

There is a dividing line crossed when one does what is forbidden, and once that line is crossed, there is no second one.

Which goes to my second point -- "don't trust anyone over the age of 30" is back -- but now it is "21" -- there is a lot to be said for the moderating influence of older adults around. The entire idea of the "Student Affairs" profession was not to bust kids but to have older and (hopefully) more mature people around to guide and moderate behavior.

What's happening now are three things. Kids hide themselves away to drink in secret -- which is how these problems with drunken kids and "party houses" aren't controllable until they become problems.

The second thing is called "pre-gaming" -- if you can't drink at the event, the alternative is to arrive already drunk -- and the kids consume what they perceive as "a night's worth" of alcohol -- in the half-hour prior to departure.

Yes, there is a difference between drinking that amount over 6 hours versus all at once, but that isn't the worst of it.

Third -- drugs are back. Big time -- and a lot of what you see as "ETOH" is actually "alcohol and drugs" together.

Drugs are cheap -- Heroin cheaper than beer. They are dry and compact -- my bottle of 500 Ibuprofen capsules the same size as my can of -- in the physical space of just one can of beer, you can have enough drugs to cause multiple overdoses. And this stuff can be tucked into bras and elsewhere, it is far easier to conceal than alcohol.

This is my third problem with the drinking age -- beer is illegal, "Molly" is illegal -- and one is a whole lot more *deadly* than the other. While I might hedge on Marijuana not being worse than alcohol, everything else is. Is by quite a bit!

So take Heroin, which *has* killed in Amherst -- both are illegal, both you will get into trouble for if caught, but Heroin is far easier not to get caught with -- which would you use if your sole objective was not getting caught?

This is why I think that the 21 year old drinking age is stupid.

Dr. Ed said...

Hey Ed just an FYI, it doesn't make much difference if you sign your name or tell someone to their face because you're still nothing but a fuckin' nut!

But you don't have the courage to put your name on that, do you?

Says a lot about you.

Dr. Ed said...

How would you KNOW if UMass is sectioning kids?

One could always look at the AFD dispatch logs....

Or, if one is well trusted to the point where even off-duty police officers often tell him stuff, one might have been told about this. There might have been lots of people telling you little pieces and over time, hearing enough disturbing individual incidents, you start wondering about a bigger picture.

But the true crown jewel is when the guy in charge of it wrote about it in a professional journal. Yes, he did this, and I read the article....

And considering the suicide and attempted self harm rate, if they weren't, it would be neglect.

Or paranoia.

And "who guards the guardians?"

Dr. Ed said...

"UMPD" is not "doing" the committals... the trained and certified Mental Health staff do.

Not according to Rockland-Miller's journal article -- this is a direct cut and paste of his "Case Vignette"

John Doe was a 19-year-old sophomore when he came to the attention of the administrative team early in the fall semester, following a series of complaints
for harassment. When campus police went to interview John, he became agitated and appeared confused and incoherent.

Following a consult with the on-call mental health clinician, he was briefly hospitalized.


My reading of the above is that the UMPD did the evaluation of the student, the UMPD consulted the on-call "clinician" (who likely was just a graduate student) and then the UMPD did the commitment. (Documentation on that can be found in the UHS statement to potential interns.)

This is consistent with some other things I have been told, but this is from a journal article -- "Assessing Disturbed and Disturbing Students" which appeared in the Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 8-23. I believe that is a "refereed journal" and at the very least is a public document.

If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, but those two paragraphs say that the police did the interviewing and after consulting, hospitalized him.

Anonymous said...

Ed @1:01pm, Ok you forced it out of me, my name is Dixie Normus.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Idiot Ed -- you said "Amherst, UMass & Hadley cops treat UM kids worse than Bull Connor's cops ever dreamed of treating African Americans". So tell us, Ed: What tactics are they using that are worse than fire hoses and attack dogs?

Fucking moron.

Anonymous said...

Riiiiiight, so, the clinician doesn't actually drive the patient to the hospital, police/emt do that. Get it Dr. Idiot?

Dr. said...

So tell us, Ed: What tactics are they using that are worse than fire hoses and attack dogs?

You are missing my point -- the fire hoses and attack dogs were employed after & because the lawful orders of the police were ignored.

Had they dispersed when ordered to do so, there wouldn't have been anyone for the fire hoses to hit, nor the dogs to bite.

By contrast, should the UM kids fail to disperse, what would the police response be? It would be far more violent -- remember Victoria Snellgrove?

And I have this lovely picture of a police officer on horseback clubbing a UM student in Southwest....

Anonymous said...

Oh my gosh, I am so very sorry. When I read...

"the Amherst, UMass & Hadley cops treat UM kids worse than Bull Connor's cops ever dreamed of treating African Americans"

...I didn't even notice the parts in italics:

"If they failed to disperse, the Amherst, UMass & Hadley cops might possibly, in some Ed-concocted bizarro universe, treat UM kids worse than Bull Connor's cops ever dreamed of treating African Americans who failed to disperse -- or at least that's what the voice coming out of my ass is saying."

For the record, when I wrote "Fucking moron", I actually meant to write "Fucking moron". I do hope that much was clear.

Dr. Ed said...

Whatever.

Anonymous said...

Dr Ed said, "You are missing my point."
Maybe if you actually got to the point, people would get it.

Dr. Ed said...

Try this then:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/23/infamous-uc-davis-pepper-spray-cop-given