Atlanta Eagle raid reponse: I’m calling bullshit

The Chief of the Atlanta police says that the reason the Eagle was raided is because of complaints of (as well as undercover cops witnessing) sex acts and drugs being used. Yet, interestingly enough, no drugs were found when the raid happened. Perhaps most importantly, and why I am calling total and utter bullshit on that half-assed “excuse”, is that upon arriving at the bar, if sex acts would have been occurring, the undercover officers would have clearly seen them; yet, again, those too were absent.

So why was the raid even carried out? If the undercover officers were present prior to the raid, as was reported by the police, they would have been able to observe that NO sex acts were occurring, right? Yet, they continued with the raid; which makes this excuse invalid. Additionally, after the raid, and even after no drugs were found (the other so-called reason for the raid), they checked each person’s ID, and ran background checks in what seems like a clear attempt to “find something”. At best, the only claim that they have, is that undercover cops should have arrested someone having sex or using drugs at the time they witnessed it; otherwise, it’s a moot point, and frankly, a half-assed excuse that does not justify the events that occurred last Thursday night.

Now, I am not saying the Eagle is perfect by any means, but if you give two reasons why you raided a bar, and the treatment of its customers was harsh and anti-gay at best, you have to at least substantiate those claims in your explanation, Officer Pennington. Saying that it was “suspicion” isn’t good enough, especially when you again, consider the treatment of the patrons. This statement is essentially admitting that the police involved illegally detained people, searched them, and then illegally ran background checks on them; and that it is okay, even though they lacked the proper lawful permission to do so. I just want to know why the police, who are supposed to be bound by the law, are apparently above it?

This is the part of his statement that probably angers me the most (from the article linked above):

He also expressed regret that Danni Lynn Harris, the department’s liaison with the gay and lesbian community, had not been notified of the raid.

“She should have been invited,” Pennington said. If she had been there, the chief said, any inappropriate behavior by the officers could have been curtailed.

“This is very unfortunate this incident occurred,” Pennington said. “I’m sorry for what happened.”

So, Officer Pennington, their behavior should only be kept in check when another gay officer is around? I don’t know what bothers me more; the fact that she wasn’t there to “keep them in line”, or the fact that these officers are apparently such bigots at heart, that these checks and balances are even necessary. I thought policemen and policewomen were supposed to protect us, all of us; regardless of race, gender, religion, or orientation? Apparently, that only applies when your community liaison is present.

Again, I’m calling bullshit, Officer Pennington. I only hope the investigation of these events, is not over run with the deception that already clearly blankets this situation in fog. This was a clear violation of the rights of those involved, and I hope that the Atlanta police are held responsible for their actions. It boggles the mind to see that crime is escalating in the manner in which it is throughout Atlanta, yet, in a 1960’s fashion, police officers are beating down the doors of a gay bar because of suspicion that “something unsavory is going on in the dark”. It’s good to know that my tax dollars are hard at work.

7 Responses to “Atlanta Eagle raid reponse: I’m calling bullshit”


  1. Gravatar Icon 1 mingaling Sep 15th, 2009 at 11:45 am

    He is such a dipshit. Is there a countdown clock somewhere that lets us know when he will go the fuck away?

  2. Gravatar Icon 2 John Sep 15th, 2009 at 12:12 pm

    The Eagle is NOT a perfect establishment, and there may have been initial justification going in, but once the initial reasons for the raid didn’t materialize, it became a witch hunt. No excuse whatsoever.

  3. Gravatar Icon 3 Rightwing Bugboy Sep 15th, 2009 at 9:08 pm

    Danni has been “left out” before. Which pisses me off. How many times does THIS happen as an accident?

    That being said, AE is pretty hard core. Not that the patrons there deserved that treatment. But still, it’s raunchy.

    Why were the background checks illegal?

  4. Gravatar Icon 4 Mark Sep 16th, 2009 at 6:59 am

    APD needs re-organization, diversity training and a refresher on the constitution. Commando raids are a waste of taxpayer money. Atlantan’s end up spending more on legal payouts for faulty policy and renegade cops.

    Good story from WABE on this whole situation:

    “Does APD Policy Violate Atlantans’ First Amendment Rights?”

    Jim Burress (2009-09-15)

    http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wabe/news.newsmain/article/0/13/1554727/Top.Stories/Does.APD.Policy.Violate.Atlantans

  5. Gravatar Icon 5 Christopher Waldrop Sep 16th, 2009 at 9:42 am

    The background checks were illegal because the police have to have probable cause to take someone’s ID and run a background check on you. If a cop grabs you on the street and asks to see your ID you’d be stupid to refuse, but, legally, the cop needs to have some reason–and it should be better than “I don’t like the way you’re walking”.

    The Eagle Bar may not be perfect, but I’ve been in plenty of less-than-stellar bars. And I’m sure I’ve been in some nice bars where some illicit things were going on. That doesn’t mean the places needed to be raided.

    And I realize Danni Lynn Harris, the department’s liaison with the gay and lesbian community, has got to support the department to keep her job and therefore has to stick to the approved script, BS though it may be, but since she’s been left out enough that I wonder if she’s going to start wondering if she’s anything more than window dressing. I wonder that myself. If they’re going to keep her out of the actual goings-on and make her lie to the public they might as well not have a liaison.

  6. Gravatar Icon 6 duane Sep 16th, 2009 at 10:46 am

    Bugboy, just as Christopher said, there was no probable cause to run the background checks. Once the search determined that there were no drugs present (one of the two reasons for the raid), probable cause went out the window, and it became a violation of their rights.

  7. Gravatar Icon 7 Rightwing Bugboy Sep 16th, 2009 at 8:18 pm

    If you see that printed anywhere please post the cite on the background checks. I’m always interested in knowing about things like this.

    I seem to recall that cops do not have to have any cause to see your ID, and that if you refuse or don’t have it they can run you in. Is this correct?

Leave a Reply




categoricalness

achivalness