Rodney King, wife beater.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

It's really too bad. I guess we all CAN'T get along.

Cite (http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/7011930.htm)

God, how I wish he would have resisted like the last time. He deserved to get his ass kicked the last time, and he deserves to get it kicked this time. Only this time, make sure there's no one around with a videocamera. Or if someone is taping it, make sure they get it from the beginning this time.

What a piece of garbage this guy is. Lock his dumb ass up and throw away the key.

[Zenster]

The guy is a criminal trainwreck. It looks like he's ready for another dose of parking lot therapy.

[yosemite]

What happened to him those years ago on the freeway was horribly wrong and the cops deserved to be put in jail for it.

But King is no angel, and never has been. I remember how the LA news downplayed a news story that happened a few months (if memory serves--I may have a few details wrong) after the beating. It had something to do with a routine police stake out for prostitution, I believe. They happened to catch King picking up a transvestive prostitute. When the cops tried to stop King (they were not "picking on him," it was just that they were there on their stake-out, and King was one of the dumb Johns that got caught). Anyway, when the cops tried to pull over King, he tried to run them over with his car. His lawyer immediately spinned it, saying how "distraught" King was by the beating, as if that somehow explained his behavior.

Bullshit. Not that picking up a prostitute is that big of a deal, but the guy is no shrinking violet either. And running over people is sort of his MO, as we all now know. (He's run over his wife before, but apparently she was not injured badly.)

No, I have no cites for this--just my memory of watching the LA news.

It irritated me that he was played as such a "great guy" after the beating. He's not a great guy. He was defintely victim of police brutality, but that doesn't automatically make him a great guy. And him being a scumbag doesn't make what the police did to him less awful. What they did was evil.

[yosemite]

Ack. Typo. "transvestive." Whatever. Makes for a colorful story anyway.

[swami]

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
God, how I wish he would have resisted like the last time. He deserved to get his ass kicked the last time,Of course it wasn't excessive force. :rolleyes: and he deserves to get it kicked this time.He deserves to get the same treatment as anyone else who is accused of spousal abuse. No more, no less. Equal treatment under the law, King shouldn't be treated any different. Only this time, make sure there's no one around with a videocamera. Just shut up right now, you are embarrassing yourself. You would have the US police force as a whole degrade into that of a lawless third world nation. Their job is to police not dish out beatings.What a piece of garbage this guy is. Lock his dumb ass up and throw away the key. I agree, the guy seems like an asshole, and if he did attack his wife he should be punished.

[UncleBill]

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
God, how I wish he would have resisted like the last time. He deserved to get his ass kicked the last time, and he deserves to get it kicked this time. Only this time, make sure there's no one around with a videocamera. Quit being a twit, Airman Doors, USAF. Advocating the beating of a man when he is NOT resisting arrest is low, and to suggest the evidence never come to light is lower. Please grow up.

[Earl of the CC]

Airman shut the hell up. Just shut the hell up. This country doesn't have a justice system that operates on giving people what they deserve. It has a justice system based on protecting the populace. That's the best and most civil that can be done. Wishing the cops would beat people up who deserve it is about the least. Get your head out of your ass.

[fruitbat]

Airman have you lost your mind? 'Beat him and then beat him some more' is not exactly sound social policy. There is already enough antagonism between the police and the policed. A few beatings aren't going to help the matter.

I really couldn't care less about what happens to Rodney King. I do care about maintaining a civil and decent society. A society which condones beatings as some kind of preemptive punishment isn't one I want any part of. It is hard enough to get people to trust the police. If I think that the general citizenry condones casual beatings I, a law abiding person, will avoid interaction with the police as a matter of course.

[Mr. Evil Breakfast]

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
God, how I wish he would have resisted like the last time. He deserved to get his ass kicked the last time, and he deserves to get it kicked this time. Only this time, make sure there's no one around with a videocamera. Or if someone is taping it, make sure they get it from the beginning this time.

Sounds like you would have fit right in with Saddam and his son Uday.

Nice company, that.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Airman Doors, USAF]

OK. Here's why I think it was justified.

What you didn't see on that tape was Rodney King drunk off his ass fleeing from the police at 100+ miles per hour, taunting the cops after he was pulled over, scuffling with the four cops, rendering them unable to put the cuffs on, and taking two high-voltage taser shots. And he kept trying to get up.

But of course the police were unjustified. After he tried to get up the third time, they should have helped him to his feet, dusted him off, issued him an apology, and let him go about his business, I guess. :rolleyes:

How many lives were ruined because Rodney King didn't pull over? How many were ruined because the videotape made him look like a victim?

[Soul Brother Number Two]

Airman, I haven't paid too much attention to your posts, but the ones I have noticed lately make you seem like a fucking idiot. Shut it already. After that Nixon/Watergate debacle, you'd think you'd have learned to be quiet when the grownups are talking. [insert roll-eyes smiley here}

[Geobabe]

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
How many lives were ruined because Rodney King didn't pull over? How many were ruined because the videotape made him look like a victim? All right, I'll bite: how many lives were ruined as a direct result of King's actions? And don't bring in the riots, because that was in no way his fault.

[CBEscapee]

Doors, you're a dipshit. always have been, always will be.

[Soul Brother Number Two]

Oh, and you too, Zenster. Thanks for showing your true colors. All that Burning Man peace and love crap might have confused some newbies.

[malkavia]

I agree that the video tape probably just caught them at the wrong time. I do believe that the cops got a little carried away, but he's honestly lucky they didnt shoot him for charging at them in the beginning.

As for the spousal abuse, isn't there some sort of 3-strike rule in California that this guy can fall subject to?

What a fuckard.

[Blonde]

Originally posted by essvee
Oh, and you too, Zenster. Thanks for showing your true colors. All that Burning Man peace and love crap might have confused some newbies.


That's pretty out-there, essvee. Do you really think Rodney is a stand-up man? One thing's for sure - he's a rich man, unless he's blown all the cash by now. Look at the facts, and his history of violence before you come to any conclusions. It's rather nasty of you to attack Zenster in that manner, IMHO. Take a Midol or Valium and get over it.

[Soul Brother Number Two]

Blonde, what in God's green fuck does being a "stand-up man", as you put it, have to do with being beaten savagely by the police? Nothing, that's correct.

Since you don't seem to be able to read, please note that Zenster lovingly suggested that Mr. King would benefit from "another dose of parking lot therapy."

Go play in the road.

[Blonde]

He was beaten as he evaded police arrest; not an excuse for being beaten, but he was/is a criminal, and the riots that ensued were devastating. You've been around long enough to understand how Zenster writes, so stop it with the appalled/freaked-out response.

And go play in the road yourself, sweetie.

[Zenster]

Originally posted by essvee
Oh, and you too, Zenster. Thanks for showing your true colors. All that Burning Man peace and love crap might have confused some newbies. Um ... I don't recall advocating that King should have the police beat the crap out of him in secretive fashion. I said the man needs some parking lot therapy, preferrably from the family of the girlfriend he's beating. Yeah, that's extrajudicial, but it's not going to bring the system tumbling down. King has repeatedly brought down all sorts of crap upon his own head by his own hand.

While I in no ways agree that he should have had the snot whaled out of him for it, I can still see where the cops were awfully pissed off about having to risk their own lives and that of citizens on the road after pursuing him at 100+ MPH. Count them, 55 people died in the riots that followed King's beating. Had King not flagrantly and maliciously broken the law, none of it might have happened. While it is arguable that King is to blame for the riots, his misconduct certainly played a part. Yes, it was the cops that nearly descended to his level of stupidity that are most to blame. I just refuse to give King a pass on his bullshit.

King has repeatedly shown a reckless disregard for the public's and his own welfare. After a while, it gets just plain tiresome having to read about his latest peccadillo. I'm hoping that he is found in violation of probation or whatever other enhancements they can find to shut his pathetic ass in prison for a few decades.

Try to imagine how much of the taxpayer's money this maggot has wasted. Completely omit the riots and subsequent settlement. Since that time, King has probably racked up more arrests, convictions and sentences than a few average citizens put together. There's a limit to my patience with scum bags who just can't resist being a stupid shit time after time.

Did I mention Los Angeles rules poker?

Four clubs beat a King.

[chique]

Actually, Blonde, essvee pretty much hit it on the head. Zenster's regularly wishes physical harm on other human beings. I find such posts distasteful (never mind hypocritical) and will not search for them, but the evils he wants done to others I, personally, wouldn't want done to a rat.

I will never understand people who believe that justice equals revenge. Sharia law isn't my idea of civilization.

[Blonde]

Originally posted by chique
Actually, Blonde, essvee pretty much hit it on the head. Zenster's regularly wishes physical harm on other human beings. I find such posts distasteful (never mind hypocritical) and will not search for them, but the evils he wants done to others I, personally, wouldn't want done to a rat.

I will never understand people who believe that justice equals revenge. Sharia law isn't my idea of civilization.

Then you and I will have to agree to disagree. Good night.

[El Cid Viscoso]

Originally posted by Blonde

You've been around long enough to understand how Zenster writes, so stop it with the appalled/freaked-out response.

*snip*

Then you and I will have to agree to disagree. Good night. <shudder> Whahthu?!!

Just because of that statement, Blonde, I'm angry with Zenster. And I don't even have a beef with Zenster.


Uhh...uh...King's an asshole. He let a lot of people down. He's a violent criminal now representing the dark side of recidivism. But Laws Me, he don't deserve no whuppin', no way, no how. :sigh:

[Zenster]

Originally posted by chique
Actually, Blonde, essvee pretty much hit it on the head. Zenster's regularly wishes physical harm on other human beings. I find such posts distasteful (never mind hypocritical) and will not search for them, but the evils he wants done to others I, personally, wouldn't want done to a rat.

I will never understand people who believe that justice equals revenge. Sharia law isn't my idea of civilization. Oh boo fucking hoo. Cry me a river! I'm the only big nasty cold hearted and evil brute at these boards who wishes harm upon people. Go whizz in your own cheerios sometime and see how you like the flavor. If I ever do the sort of things that I feel rates a beat down for other people, I fully expect to get a good beating myself. Where's the hypocrisy in that? We've been over this turf many times before. So don't piss in my ear and tell me it's raining.

[Beagle]

King was sentenced last Aug. 27 after police said he raced through a Rialto intersection at more than 100 mph in his new SUV on April 13 before losing control of the car, striking a utility pole, crashing into a fence and hitting a house. Authorities said tests revealed he had a ``significant amount'' of PCP in his system. Who lets him drive? I would not even sell him a car.

[Zenster]

Sadly, this fuckwit will always be able to get his hands on a car. What astonishes me is that his driver's license has not been revoked permanently. He will eventually kill someone else with his lawlessness and in this particular case it will be entirely the system's fault.

[Beagle]

Given King's driving history that I am aware of, I think any judge would be pretty remiss in giving him the idea he should be driving. I'm sure he's a great driver when he's not on angel dust. :dubious:

Did anyone ever see the Cops in Philly where a naked guy on PCP who has been shot by a frightened homeowner requires five cops to bring him down? Followed by the guy whose car gets rear-ended on camera by another guy on PCP, remember that? The best part is the guy stops to tell the cops about the horrible driver smashing into cars, then he gets smashed right there in front of your eyes. No injuries, so you can laugh without guilt.

[GaWd]

Airman, do you even read the shit you spew onto the boards sometimes? I feel sorry for your family, friends, coworkers or anyone who has to be in intimate contact with you on a regular basis.

Sam

[El Cid Viscoso]

by Beagle

Did anyone ever see the Cops in Philly where a naked guy on PCP who has been shot by a frightened homeowner requires five cops to bring him down?Big guy, bloody, in a barbershop where the owner lived upstairs? Didn't the owner get some shots off at the guy?

Freaked me right out. It was around that time that I stopped interfering in bar fights.

[Beagle]

Originally posted by Mr. B
Big guy, bloody, in a barbershop where the owner lived upstairs? Didn't the owner get some shots off at the guy?

Freaked me right out. It was around that time that I stopped interfering in bar fights. That's the one! Wow, that took no time at all. I forgot what kind of business he lived over. I just remember the bloody guy lunging at the camera screaming "put it in the paper!" Which I think means he knew he was lunging -- naked, shot (one, in the chest), bloody -- at a member of the media, but not which branch.

The very next scene is the other craziest thing I ever saw on Cops. Philly is not a place to be when the new angel dust arrives.

[El Cid Viscoso]

The most telling part about the barbershop episode is the silvery look of fear in the cop's eyes as he's describing what he's about to go through. (The funniest part for me is the juxtaposed tiny little checkerboard cop-hat).

I've not seen the car-ramming scene. I'm surprised the rammer didn't get out of his car and start clobberin' stuff like The Thing.

[Zenster]

Look, can we all get back on topic about the contusions, compound fractures and deep lacerations King needs to have inflicted upon him? Enough of this hijacking, already!

[Beagle]

It's funny you mention that, Zenster. My contrarian instincts tell me to let him out, give him some PCP, and put him on Mulholland Drive -- is that the curvy road in LA with all the Porsche 911s?

If so, no beating necessary.

Mr. B That's the only time I've seen a Cops cameraman beating a hasty retreat away from a suspect. Usually they are running to catch up. Not this time. He almost gets past all five cops. I thought those cops deserved a medal for not killing that guy, or seriously (further) injuring him.

[Beagle]

Eh, I might be thinking of Laurel Canyon. Now that I think about it, there really aren't any good roads in LA for people on PCP to drive on. San Francisco is worse.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting that any municipality is truly great for driving while you are as high as a Georgia pine, violent, and experiencing massive sensory distortion.

Suspend King's license FOREVER, put him in an ankle bracelet, or put him in jail. I'm not for street justice unless it is in self-defense -- and then not street justice.

[Typo Negative]

Nobody ever said King was an angel. Or even a good guy. or even that he wasn't a lowlife.

But his crime pales in comparison to the good, old-fashioned ass whupping he got from the police.

And lets be real. That was NOT police work. That was violent thugs who also wore badges beating a guy and having fun doing it. We're all better off without them on the force.

[blowero]

Airman Doors, USAF, you suck.

[Liberal]

Fred Phelps is a Democrat.

[yosemite]

Originally posted by Beagle
Eh, I might be thinking of Laurel Canyon. Now that I think about it, there really aren't any good roads in LA for people on PCP to drive on. The perfect spot: Angeles Crest. It's perilous. A steady stream of fatal accidents up there--very twisty, isolated in spots. Scary.

[TwistofFate]

so Zenster, when exactly is voilent retribution allowed, and when is it not?

Airman, nice of you to live up to your usual standard.

[gobear]

Could we maybe ease up off Airman for a sec? He is not seriously advocating a policy of judicial torture by the police; he is merely expressing irritation that Rodney King, who is indeed a waste of oxygen, has learned nothing from past mistakes and is now a wife-beater. And, yes, IMO any man who beats a woman deserves to have his ass stomped in return.


I feel sorry for your family, friends, coworkers or anyone who has to be in intimate contact with you on a regular basis.

This is utter crap. You have every right to dispute or condemn his posts, but you do NOT know his character. I know Airman IRL. Airman is a good friend, a devoted husband, and a doting father. So kindly do not spout off on matters on which you know nothing.

[CBEscapee]

is a good friend, a devoted husband, and a doting father.

Good qualities without a doubt. But I know a lot of assholes that posess them too.

[gobear]

Well, one may regard his posts as assholish--I don't, but we can disagree--but to extrapolate from his posts that his character must be so bad that one "feels sorry for his family, friends, coworkers or anyone who has to be in intimate contact with him on a regular basis" is, IMO, a far, far more assholish comment than anything Airman has written.

You might condemn his posts, but attacking his character is crossing the line.

[UrbanChic]

gobear, Airman Doors has been an ass for the past couple of weeks. In fact, he posted something the other day (I can't remember what) and I agreed with him completely. It took all I could not to type 'I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with Airman Doors completely' as a reply.

I can't recall if he's always been an ass so I've cut him a little slack. Not that he asked for the slack, but slack I've cut, nonetheless.

[Beagle]

But his crime pales in comparison to the good, old-fashioned ass whupping he got from the police. I disagree. King's repeated high speed trips while on PCP make him a serious danger to society. It is truly a miracle he has not killed anyone yet.

I thought the cops used excessive force on King also. Too bad the first jury didn't. That could have saved some problems down the road.

[gobear]

gobear, Airman Doors has been an ass for the past couple of weeks.

Well, I'm not defending his posts, and for all I know he may have posted items that might annoy me, for we definitely do not see eye to eye on some issues.

BUT, that's not the point.

People may disagree with his posts as vehemently as they please, but to say that the content of his posts make him unpleasant to know in real life, as Gawd wrote, is way over the line IMO. Airman is a great guy (and an awesome cheesesteak chef), and no amount of posts will change that. Besides, if MsRobyn, an avowed Democrat and an extremely good person, loves him and lives with him, then Airman mustn't be all that bad.

[mhendo]

Originally posted by gobear
Well, one may regard his posts as assholish--I don't, but we can disagree--but to extrapolate from his posts that his character must be so bad that one "feels sorry for his family, friends, coworkers or anyone who has to be in intimate contact with him on a regular basis" is, IMO, a far, far more assholish comment than anything Airman has written.

You might condemn his posts, but attacking his character is crossing the line. Of course, you forget that most people on this message board have not met him, and plenty of people have not met anyone else on the Boards in real life. Given that this is the case, people make their evaluations based on what they read, and you're pretty fucking thin-skinned if you can't take some personal comments that constitute direct responses to what you write. You're even more thin-skinned if you feel the need to jump and defend another board member simply because you happen to have met him a few times. People extrapolate about one another's character based on their posts on this board all the time. "Crossing the line"? Grow up.

As for Airman's OP, it seemed to me that it's indicative of both his character and his intelligence. First, the intelligence aspect. Airman's connecting of this most recent Rodney King incident with the videotaped beating of before demonstrates a problem with establishing logical connections. The OP assumes that, just because King has been found to have done something illegal now, this must mean that the beating of him in the past is somehow retrospectively justified. While we might all agree that King is an asshole (i certainly do), this is a separate issue from that of police brutality.

Furthermore, it appears that he's too stupid to recognize the legal and moral differences between using reasonable force to detain someone who is a criminal suspect and an asshole, and beating the crap out of that person once they are detained. Airman is also apparently ignorant enough to believe that causing police to chase and subdue you gives them license to take revenge by submitting you to a group bashing and kicking.

And it's here that we shade into issues of character, because the OP makes it very clear that he believes that police brutality is perfectly acceptable, as long as the victim is someone who he doesn't happen to like very much, and who has doone something to piss the police off. But, gobear, if that's the sort of "character" that you find so admirable, then who am i to argue?

[gobear]

You're even more thin-skinned if you feel the need to jump and defend another board member simply because you happen to have met him a few times. People extrapolate about one another's character based on their posts on this board all the time. "Crossing the line"? Grow up.

And may I retort, "Blow me." This board is about eradicating ignorance. Gawd's post reflected a lack of knowledge that I cleared up. Don't like it? Tough. I don't need your permission to post.


And it's here that we shade into issues of character, because the OP makes it very clear that he believes that police brutality is perfectly acceptable, as long as the victim is someone who he doesn't happen to like very much, and who has doone something to piss the police off. But, gobear, if that's the sort of "character" that you find so admirable, then who am i to argue?

And as I said, his post seemed to me to be a facetious wish for a wife-beater to receive condign punishment and not an actual advocation of judicial torture by the cops. And yes, beating wife-beaters seems like a suitable punishment to me. I take a dim view of men who hit women.

[DogMom]

Originally posted by Zenster
Sadly, this fuckwit will always be able to get his hands on a car. What astonishes me is that his driver's license has not been revoked permanently. He will eventually kill someone else with his lawlessness and in this particular case it will be entirely the system's fault.

Not disagreeing with you, Zenster, but I gotta say that this rather makes me laugh. He's already been in more trouble than you can shake a cop at, including buying and using PCP, beating up on his girlfriend, and DUI, as well as speeding.

What difference would it really make to him if they do revoke his license permanently? Heck, i read in the papers around here all the time about such-and-so was arrested for driving while license suspended, (whether temporary or permanent suspension.) They get...oh...maybe a month in the slammer for it. I do agree that they need to revoke his license, but I really don't see what ultimate difference it would make.
I mean, it's not like the guy's suddenly going to say, "Whoa, they took away my license. I better straighten up." nope, it'll be just one more thing added to the long, long list of illegalities he's committed.

[gobear]

You're even more thin-skinned if you feel the need to jump and defend another board member simply because you happen to have met him a few times. People extrapolate about one another's character based on their posts on this board all the time. "Crossing the line"? Grow up.

And may I retort, "Blow me." This board is about eradicating ignorance. Gawd's post reflected a lack of knowledge that I cleared up. Don't like it? Tough. I don't need your permission to post.
Moreover, I am astonished that a poster as intelligent as you cannot (or will not) tell the difference between attacking the post and and attacking the person. I know you know the difference, so I can only conclude that you approve of mud-slinging as a debate tactic. Character questions abound indeed.

And it's here that we shade into issues of character, because the OP makes it very clear that he believes that police brutality is perfectly acceptable, as long as the victim is someone who he doesn't happen to like very much, and who has doone something to piss the police off. But, gobear, if that's the sort of "character" that you find so admirable, then who am i to argue?

And as I said, his post seemed to me to be a facetious wish for a wife-beater to receive condign punishment and not an actual advocation of judicial torture by the cops. And yes, beating wife-beaters seems like a suitable punishment to me. I take a dim view of men who hit women.

[The_Raven]

Howyadoin,

Jesus...

Who needs ten-fingers to get on top of the pigpile?!?

How come the Offenderati are over here, instead of spending their time singing a hearty chorus of "Look For The Union Label" over in the "I Crossed A Picket Line" thread?

Oh, easy target, I see...

Please, carry on... Look, there's a lovely spot available just above AD's left shoulder!

-Rav

[The_Raven]

Howyadoin,

Jesus...

Who needs ten-fingers to get on top of the pigpile?!?

How come the Offenderati are over here, instead of spending their time singing a hearty chorus of "Look For The Union Label" over in the "I Crossed A Picket Line" thread?

Oh, easy target, I see... Geez, I'm glad I never in my life said that a reprehensible scumbag deserved a beating, aren't you all? I'm sure Fred Phelps and his ilk will appreciate the fresh new aroma of tolerance and civility that is wafting through the Pit...

So, sorry to interrupt. Please, carry on... Look, there's a lovely spot available just above AD's larynx! If you press hard enough, you get the chokehold bonus!

-Rav

[Isabelle]

Two wrongs don't make a right (but three left turns do)…the beating was wrong, however King is a total idiot as well...

[Isabelle]

Two wrongs don't make a right (but three left turns do)…the beating was wrong, however King is a total idiot as well...

:wally

[GaWd]

Gobear-

Where is this "lack of knowledge" that you speak of?* Just because I don't know him IRL doesn't mean I can't think of him as a prick of the highest order, does it? Am I barred from my opinion? Am I not allowed to extrapolate an opinion of his character online(the only persona I know of), and insert him in my life and think of how I would feel if I was forced to spend any sort of time with him?

How's that for self-righteous bullshit...

Sorry I insulted your "buddy" and expert cheesesteak chef. :rolleyes:

Sam

*- In an online community, all we know of members is this online persona. He's been coming off like the OP for many weeks and that's what prompted my comments.

I really don't care about your opinion, or that MsRobyn(the Democrat) is married to the guy, or that he's such a "great guy" in person. I'm not in Ohio or wherever he is, I'm here. Online.

[World Eater]

Airman have you lost some meds lately?

You've seemed pretty strange these past few weeks.

[gobear]

Where is this "lack of knowledge" that you speak of?* Just because I don't know him IRL doesn't mean I can't think of him as a prick of the highest order, does it? Am I barred from my opinion? Am I not allowed to extrapolate an opinion of his character online(the only persona I know of), and insert him in my life and think of how I would feel if I was forced to spend any sort of time with him?

You may disparage his online persona all you please, and you may even insert him in your life and think of how you would feel if you were forced to spend any sort of time with him. But when you opine on how people who do know him IRL are supposd to feel, then I have to speak up.

I really don't care about your opinion, or that MsRobyn(the Democrat) is married to the guy, or that he's such a "great guy" in person. I'm not in Ohio or wherever he is, I'm here. Online.

Then confine your comments to his persona online, not IRL where you are unqualified to speak.

[GaWd]

Yet again Gobear, I'm qualified to speak of my opinion. Anytime, anyplace, anywhere. I never said that you should feel any way whatsoever. You have a right to put him on a pedestal and worship him if you so choose.

I'm sorry your feelings are so hurt, but your friend has a mouth that constantly spews forth reprehensible thoughts and ideas. It is yet again, my right to comment wherever I like.

His online persona leads me to stand by my original post.

Sam

[gobear]

You have a right to put him on a pedestal and worship him if you so choose.

Say what? Apparently you missed the part where I mentioned that I have disagreements with him, too. One can disagree with someone and still like him and stick up for him. Goodness knows I detest religion, yet I defend Christian dopers against idiots like Badchad. Bet you think I put Christian dopers on a pedestal, too.

I'm sorry your feelings are so hurt,

You're nothing to me, so you don't have that power.
[/quote]
But your friend has a mouth that constantly spews forth reprehensible thoughts and ideas. It is yet again, my right to comment wherever I like.
[/quote]
And, my semiliterate friend, you missed the bit where I supportedthat exact point. My disagrement with you is this: you said that you feel sorry for anybody who knows him IRL because you think he's a jerk to everyone he knows, and I'm saying that is not so. You don't know him IRL, hence you cannot speak on his life or how he is viewed IRL because, as I said, you do not know what you are talking about.

Rip into his online persona all you like, he can handle it. But when you go beyond his online persona, as you did, then there must be clarification.

[Beagle]

Let me be the first to say: linkety linkerino to all these instances of Airman being an ass. I spend way too much time surfing these boards and I'm not sure what is being discussed.

By the way, it's not like he suggested beating the poor. What Rodney does to himself must hurt as much or more than an ass-whipping, IMO. Still doesn't make gratuitous beatings right, but the sentiment is understandable. King chooses to do a drug that always leads to these horrendously violent outbursts of superhuman strength.

Glad I'm not a cop. I'd be tempted to just shoot him, several times, when he runs at me.

[World Eater]

Originally posted by Beagle
chooses to do a drug that always leads to these horrendously violent outbursts of superhuman strength.


Sure was a violent outburst that time he was laying on the ground getting the shit kicked out of him.

[mhendo]

Originally posted by gobear
And may I retort, "Blow me." This board is about eradicating ignorance. Gawd's post reflected a lack of knowledge that I cleared up. Don't like it? Tough. I don't need your permission to post.
Moreover, I am astonished that a poster as intelligent as you cannot (or will not) tell the difference between attacking the post and and attacking the person. I know you know the difference, so I can only conclude that you approve of mud-slinging as a debate tactic. Character questions abound indeed.And you seem to have problems seeing that aspects of a person's character can be reflected in the contents of their posts. This is not a simple case of an ad hominem attack that treats the content of the argument as irrelevant and focuses on the person instead; rather, it is an assessment of someone's character based on the content of their argument.

Furthermore, GaWd made it quite clear, by asking "Airman, do you even read the shit you spew onto the boards sometimes?" that his assessment of Airman's character is based not simply on the contents of the OP in this thread, but on previous encounters with Airman on these message boards. If you'll bother to check the Board's history, you'll see that GaWd and Airman have been on the opposite sides of debates in the past.

Constant exposure to a person's opinions and attitudes leads us to form opinions about their character. Plenty of people made rather personal character assessments of Dopers like december and Reeder based not specifically on their politics, but on their perceived dishonesty or disingenuousness.

I see that you have recently amended your position on character assessments to simply asking that people "comments to his persona online, not IRL." Well, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, i think Dopers are well within their rights to asume that real-life and online personas are congruent. Also, if you can't stand a bit of hyperbole like that offered by GaWd in this case, then maybe you should stick to GD. And as I said, his post seemed to me to be a facetious wish for a wife-beater to receive condign punishment and not an actual advocation of judicial torture by the cops. Firstly, unless torture by police is approved by law in some state that i'm not aware of, this practice would be, by definintion, extra-judicial, not judicial.

I know you've told us more than once how you interpreted the OP. But, despite your apparent belief to the contrary, this does not mean that your interpretation is the only possible one.

If the OP had said something like "Wife-beaters are cowards and scum, and deserve to get beaten to show them what it's like," then i might agree with your interpetation of the OP's intention. But Airman's post said:God, how I wish he would have resisted like the last time. He deserved to get his ass kicked the last time, and he deserves to get it kicked this time. Only this time, make sure there's no one around with a videocamera. Or if someone is taping it, make sure they get it from the beginning this time.As you can see, he repeatedly draws a direct link between the beating that King took before, and the beating that Airman believes King deserves now. And who adminstered the beating last time? The cops.

You might interpret the OP as a nebulous and generalized call for eye-for-an-eye justice against wife-beaters, but the explicit link that Airman draws between King's beating at the hands of the cops, and the beating that he "deserves" this time led many people, including me, to interpret the OP as either tacit support of or open advocacy for police brutality. Furthermore, the first sentence quoted above, in which Airman wishes that King had resisted arrest, makes it quite clear to me that he wanted the cops to beat King, but was simply concerned that they did not have an excuse for doing so.

You might not agree with my interpretation, and i agree that it's not the only possible one. However, for those who do agree with my interpretation, i think that such an interpretation is reasonable grounds for making judgments about someone's character. And yes, beating wife-beaters seems like a suitable punishment to me. I take a dim view of men who hit women.Your support for corporal punishment is your business; i'm just glad that civilized countries have moved beyond it. Also, whether or not one agrees that a man who beats his wife deserves a beating himself, this is a separate issue from whether or not police should engage in brutality agaiinst suspects. Something that Airman fails to realize is that there is no logical connection between whether or not King is an asshole, on the one hand, and whether or not police brutality against him is acceptable, on the other.

And your final sentence seems rather gratuitous. I was sort of taking it for granted that everyone in this thread takes "a dim view of men who hit women." The only inference i can draw from this sentence is that those who oppose violence against King must therefore be in favour of his beating of his wife. If this is what you're trying to say, it ranks alongside the "If you oppose the war in Iraq, you must support terrorism" argument. If it's not what you were trying to say, why bother putting it there in the first place? I think most people tend to assume you're against wife-beating unless you porvide evidence to the contrary.

[Beagle]

Originally posted by World Eater
Sure was a violent outburst that time he was laying on the ground getting the shit kicked out of him. Nice wisecrack but for the fact I already said I would have convicted the officers of "excessive force."

Problem is, they probably did have a reasonable belief he was on PCP. So, it's more like crocodile wrestling than arresting a normal suspect.

[gobear]

I see that you have recently amended your position on character assessments to simply asking that people "comments to his persona online, not IRL."

I amended nothing; that was my position from the start.

. Something that Airman fails to realize is that there is no logical connection between whether or not King is an asshole, on the one hand, and whether or not police brutality against him is acceptable, on the other.

To quote your own words, "Also, if you can't stand a bit of hyperbole like that offered by Airman in this case, then maybe you should stick to GD." I have no doubt that Airman is not seriously advocating police beatdowns as a matter of course. He was, IMO, expressing frustration that Rodney King continues to walk the streets and commit crimes, seemingly with impunity.

[quotThe only inference i can draw from this sentence is that those who oppose violence against King must therefore be in favour of his beating of his wife.
[/quote]
That's some mighty tall stretching for offense there, Tex. I have no doubt that you are firmly against vioolence to women, But I am equally convinced that your reverence for the minutiae of legal procedure may blind you to the actual moral weight of a case.

[GaWd]

Say what? Apparently you missed the part where I mentioned that I have disagreements with him, too. One can disagree with someone and still like him and stick up for him. Goodness knows I detest religion, yet I defend Christian dopers against idiots like Badchad. Bet you think I put Christian dopers on a pedestal, too.

You're allowed to have disagreements with him, unfortunately, they have nothing to do with his board behavior or me. I also don't think your defense of christians has any bearing on this either-you've stood up for AD, personally-Not as a bystander standing up for Christians. Huge difference from my point of view.


And, my semiliterate friend, you missed the bit where I supported hat exact point. My disagrement with you is this: you said that you feel sorry for anybody who knows him IRL because you think he's a jerk to everyone he knows, and I'm saying that is not so. You don't know him IRL, hence you cannot speak on his life or how he is viewed IRL because, as I said, you do not know what you are talking about.

Nice dig with the literacy comment, but I still don't see whereyou said "You're right, you can say whatever you want". You've yet again imposed the condition that I can't say something like "You must be a miserable person IRL because you're such an asshole on the SDMB".

Instead I'm now supposed to qualify every comment about Airman because you know him personally. Now I'm supposed to say something more like this: "You're such a miserable person online Airman, but I'm sure you're a fucking swell dude in person".

Also, I never asked for a character reference, I'm not giving him a fucking job, so lay off it. I don't care that you or MsRobyn will vouch for him. Hell, he could airfreight me his fucking cheesesteaks and no matter my love for a good cheesesteak(trust me I do have love for the cheesesteaks), it still wouldn't change my opinion that he gets diarrhea of the fingers and shits all over the board with them.

Don't like it? Well, to paraphrase you, blow.

Sam

[World Eater]

Originally posted by Beagle
Nice wisecrack but for the fact I already said I would have convicted the officers of "excessive force."

Problem is, they probably did have a reasonable belief he was on PCP. So, it's more like crocodile wrestling than arresting a normal suspect.

So which is it then?

[mhendo]

Well, gobear, i'm sorry that my aversion to police brutality constitutes excessive concern for minutiae in your view.

It's interesting that you accuse me of moral blindness, but are apparently willing to let Airman slide because he makes a good cheesesteak. What is also interesting is that the only part of my argument that you failed to address was the most important part--the interpretation of Airman's OP. You continue to maintain that you know what Airman meant, and your apparent refusal to counter alternative interpretations suggests that you believe that no other interpretation is possible. And all this despite the fact that i'm far from the only person who has interpreted the OP as tacit support of police brutality.

Your continued insistence that Airman was "not seriously advocating police beatdowns as a matter of course" is touching. This claim would carry a little more weight if the OP himself had actually taken the time make such a clarification. So far, however, he's been rather silent on the issue.

[gobear]

it still wouldn't change my opinion that he gets diarrhea of the fingers and shits all over the board with them.

And, as I have said several times already, there's no reason why it should. You may say anything you like about his posts

You've yet again imposed the condition that I can't say something like "You must be a miserable person IRL because you're such an asshole on the SDMB".

I'm not imposing a condition, I'm clearing up a misconception. You do not know what he is like in person, you've never met him. How can your opinion be worth anything when it is based on ignorance?

Let me repeat: you can hate his guts, go right ahead, but you do not know what he is like in person, so your opinion on his IRL behavior, as opposed to his online behavior, isn't worth very much.

[Beagle]

Originally posted by World Eater
So which is it then? Things aren't that simple, IMO. You are arguing that two positions which are not mutually exclusive, are.

[MsRobyn]

Originally posted by GaWd
Airman, do you even read the shit you spew onto the boards sometimes? I feel sorry for your family, friends, coworkers or anyone who has to be in intimate contact with you on a regular basis.

Sam

Thanks, but no thanks. I don't need your pity, and neither does Aaron, or the rest of our family. Yes, Airman loves to argue. Yes, he says stuff that I disagree with. A lot of stuff, actually. However, to condemn him to assholery because of what he says on a message board is really stupid. Argumentum ad hominem, anyone?

gobear, thanks for the character references. Second cheesesteak at Dope-A-Ween's got your name on it. (After our host's, of course) :)

Robin

[World Eater]

Originally posted by Beagle
Things aren't that simple, IMO. You are arguing that two positions which are not mutually exclusive, are.

Not implying they are mutually exclusive.

I think it's silly to say using those drugs always end up in violent confrontation, because anyone could see that Rodney was getting the living shit kicked out of him, and was putting up zilch of a fight.

Who cares if the cops though he was on whatever drugs, the beatdown was not justified.

[World Eater]

Originally posted by MsRobyn
However, to condemn him to assholery because of what he says on a message board is really stupid. Argumentum ad hominem, anyone?

Why is it stupid? What the fuck else could we judge a poster on?

[Isabelle]

Ok everyone. Take a deep breath......now let it out.......relax:D

[GaWd]

I'm not imposing a condition, I'm clearing up a misconception. You do not know what he is like in person, you've never met him.

Once again, I am not asking for a character reference. I don't care that you love him so much. As mhendo said(which you've ignored), his online self is a reflection of his IRL self to people who've not met him. To the rest of us who've not met him, what we see is what he types. Hyperbole is allowed and I'm sorry you're so thin-skinned about it.

Let me repeat: you can hate his guts, go right ahead, but you do not know what he is like in person, so your opinion on his IRL behavior, as opposed to his online behavior, isn't worth very much.

Let me clear up a misconception you have here. I think he's an asshole, I do not hate him. Hating is for guys like you and he to do. Your opinion on his IRL behavior isn't worth much to someone who sees what he spews on a daily basis online, either. He may dress up as santa clause and give gifts to terminally ill kids, but that still doesn't excuse his behavior, nor does it change my opinion.

Sam

[blowero]

Originally posted by gobear
And as I said, his post seemed to me to be a facetious wish for a wife-beater to receive condign punishment and not an actual advocation of judicial torture by the cops. And yes, beating wife-beaters seems like a suitable punishment to me. I take a dim view of men who hit women.
Dude, are you serious? Tell me what's "facetious" about this statement by Airman:

OK. Here's why I think it was justified.

What you didn't see on that tape was Rodney King drunk off his ass fleeing from the police at 100+ miles per hour, taunting the cops after he was pulled over, scuffling with the four cops, rendering them unable to put the cuffs on, and taking two high-voltage taser shots. And he kept trying to get up.

He's advocating vigilantism, plain and simple, and you seem to be agreeing with him. We all saw the tape - King was lying on the ground, and they beat the shit out of him. Those fuckers only got off because they moved the trial to Simi Valley, the biggest collection of rednecks this side of the Mississippi.

Could we maybe ease up off Airman for a sec? He is not seriously advocating a policy of judicial torture by the police; he is merely expressing irritation that Rodney King, who is indeed a waste of oxygen, has learned nothing from past mistakes and is now a wife-beater. And, yes, IMO any man who beats a woman deserves to have his ass stomped in return.

No, what a man who beats a woman deserves is to be prosecuted according to the law. Airman seems to think it's O.K. for cops to administer a little street justice, as long as the guy "deserved" it, and you defended him. Now you're trying to say "Just a joke, folks." Don't fucking piss on our leg and tell us it's raining.

[Shodan]

My perspective in the matter is, as far as I know, unique.

I am the only person (apparently) in the Western hemisphere who only saw the famous videotape of Mr. King unedited, and from the beginning. And I only saw the thing after I knew the circumstances of King's arrest.

He was struck (IIRC) 56 times in total. Findings at the first trial were that all but the last 5 or 6 blows were justified.

As far as I am concerned, King richly deserved the first fifty cracks on his thick head, and I am willing to throw the last six in for good measure. If he resisted arrest for his latest episode, I would hope and expect that he would be treated similarly. Not for wife-beating (although my contempt for a man who would raise his hand to his wife is deep and heartfelt) but for resisting arrest, which is what he got it for the last time.

This is a person who has demonstrated beyond any possibility of doubt that he is a dangerous, habitual criminal. Drunk driving, armed robbery, assault, wife-beating - can there be any doubt that he is a danger to the public, despite the millions he collected from LA in his settlement?

The LAPD has to deal with people like this all the time. And yet, if they cannot stop on a dime when it comes to subduing someone who continually jumps up from the ground and charges the police, they are excoriated as racist and thrown into prison.

The only people I can think of who deserved less blame in the videotaped beating were the other black guys in the car when King was arrested. Neither of them resisted arrest - and the police didn't lay a finger on either of them.

And who got sent to prison? The guy who resisted arrest while on parole for robbery - or the police who arrested him?

What a fucked-up world we live in.

Regards,
Shodan

[gobear]

As mhendo said(which you've ignored), his online self is a reflection of his IRL self to people who've not met him.

No, his onlone self reflects. . . his online self. I know this because he has posted opinions that annoy me yet he is a great guy IRL. Let me repeat, no matter how much of an asshole he is online, unless you have met him, you have no basis for judging his IRL behavior.

To the rest of us who've not met him, what we see is what he types.

Again, you're missing the point. I am not saying that his IRL bonhomie mitigates his online persona. What I'm saying is that his online persona does not tell you what he is like IRL. Online and IRL are two entirely separate critters.


I think he's an asshole, I do not hate him.

I take it you do not perceive the disconnect between those two sentences.

Hating is for guys like you and he to do.

Hate? I'm hating nobody. I and I got nothing but one love for all of Jah's iration.

Your opinion on his IRL behavior isn't worth much to someone who sees what he spews on a daily basis online, either. He may dress up as santa clause and give gifts to terminally ill kids, but that still doesn't excuse his behavior, nor does it change my opinion.

And once more you bear out my idea that you are not paying attention. I will even bold my remarks so they will be easy to read. I do not want you to change your opinion of Airman. I want you to understand that your dislike of Airman does not mean that nobody likes him in real life. Your comment, "I feel sorry for his family and friends is completely unwarranted. [/b]

And agian, I don't have a thin skin. I only take the energy to rebut your remarks to defend a pal. But you as a poster mean nothing to me.

[Elza B]

Originally posted by DogMom


What difference would it really make to him if they do revoke his license permanently? Heck, i read in the papers around here all the time about such-and-so was arrested for driving while license suspended, (whether temporary or permanent suspension.) They get...oh...maybe a month in the slammer for it. I do agree that they need to revoke his license, but I really don't see what ultimate difference it would make.
I mean, it's not like the guy's suddenly going to say, "Whoa, they took away my license. I better straighten up." nope, it'll be just one more thing added to the long, long list of illegalities he's committed.

Well, not to get into the thread since I don't necessarily agree with the OP, but I do work in my parents' bail bonding company and I can guarantee you that 3/4 of our clients who've been arrested for serious traffic violations are arrested for driving on a suspended operator's license. Taking away their license doesn't stop them from driving, it just means if they get caught, there's more hell to pay.

I'd be willing to bet money that unless he's in jail, King will continue to drive on his suspended OL. It doesn't stop the others with a suspended license.

Ava

[MsRobyn]

Originally posted by GaWd
Once again, I am not asking for a character reference. I don't care that you love him so much. As mhendo said(which you've ignored), his online self is a reflection of his IRL self to people who've not met him. To the rest of us who've not met him, what we see is what he types. Hyperbole is allowed and I'm sorry you're so thin-skinned about it. (emphasis mine)

Then why can't you give Airman the benefit of the doubt? This was hyperbole, plain and simple. It's a shame you're so thin-skinned about it, however.

Let me clear up a misconception you have here. I think he's an asshole, I do not hate him. Hating is for guys like you and he to do. Your opinion on his IRL behavior isn't worth much to someone who sees what he spews on a daily basis online, either. He may dress up as santa clause and give gifts to terminally ill kids, but that still doesn't excuse his behavior, nor does it change my opinion.

Sam

Well, la-de-fucking-da. Yeah, I know that we are judged on our posts on this message board. Yeah, I know Airman has posted some outlandish things. I'm not defending those statements. Lord knows I disagree with about 99% of it, if I had to assign a number. And you can think he's an asshole all you want, because you're not the only one.

That said, your original post, the one I quoted above, is flat-out unconscionable. I am a poster here, and have been for quite some time. Airman and I met on this board, in fact, and we've had a fairly public relationship since we met. Posting that you "feel sorry for [his] family" when his family also posts (and I'm including his sister, soccerbaby in here, because she lurks) is also assholish behavior. We don't need or want your pity. Whatever your opinion of Airman is, it's your opinion. Got it?

Robin

[Zenster]

Originally posted by TwistofFate
so Zenster, when exactly is voilent retribution allowed, and when is it not? ... Originally posted by gobear
... And, yes, IMO any man who beats a woman deserves to have his ass stomped in return ... I think gobear speaks rather eloquently to the point under discussion.Originally posted by gobear
... You might condemn his posts, but attacking his character is crossing the line. Oh come now, it's never stopped people from doing the same thing in my Pit threads. Why do you think they'll show any restraint now? It's not like Airman can call in a strafing run on them.Originally posted by DogMom
Not disagreeing with you, Zenster, but I gotta say that this rather makes me laugh. He's already been in more trouble than you can shake a cop at, including buying and using PCP, beating up on his girlfriend, and DUI, as well as speeding.

What difference would it really make to him if they do revoke his license permanently? ... I know, I know. It's just that the system is obliged to make some sort of move to curtail this fuckwit's behavior. In the absence of legitimate conviction and incarceration, revoking his driving privileges would be a good first step. For one thing, the instant he was caught operating another motor vehicle, he could be taken into immediate custody. If the next judge has a single yet-to-be-excreted neuron still firing, a probationary condition that King never operate a motor vehicle again should be included as a condition of his release. There should be a minimum ten year suspended sentence left in place for at least five or more years so this guy can figure out a way to off himself without taking anyone else with him.Originally posted by The_Raven
... How come the Offenderati are over here, instead of spending their time singing a hearty chorus of "Look For The Union Label" over in the "I Crossed A Picket Line" thread?

Oh, easy target, I see... Geez, I'm glad I never in my life said that a reprehensible scumbag deserved a beating, aren't you all? I'm sure Fred Phelps and his ilk will appreciate the fresh new aroma of tolerance and civility that is wafting through the Pit... Great post, Raven! Any of this getting through, chique? Originally posted by World Eater
Sure was a violent outburst that time he was laying on the ground getting the shit kicked out of him. Did you miss the part where he charges at the officers? Or does that not constitute a "violent outburst" in your book? Leading police on 100+ MPH chases and operating another vehicle at speeds of 100+ MPH doesn't demonstrate a reckless and callous disregard for human life? Have you and King been hanging in the same den?

Here's an interesting observation from this (http://www.totse.com/en/politics/police/afrodkng.html) site:After Rodney King: Police Use of Force
by Greg Meyer
After Rodney King: What Have We Learned?

by Greg Meyer

... The federal civil jury awarded King 3.8 million tax dollars from the Los Angeles city treasury for general damages but not a dime from the involved officers for punitive damages. The jury learned during the punitive damages phase that the roots of the King beating were to be found in poor policy which encouraged Los Angeles police officers who encountered resisting suspects to hit them with metal pipes ("police batons," if one prefers to minimize the impact). Most people are surprised to learn that nearly all the procedures caught on the King video tape were deemed proper by use-of-force experts who testified on both sides of the case, in view of policies sanctioned by municipal leaders more than a decade ago.

Some Los Angeles officials specifically predicted that baton beatings would be the result of taking out of routine use the most- used police tactics, commonly known as "chokeholds." A number of arrested suspects on whom the holds had been used, later died while in police custody during the late 1970s and early 1980s, when society found its streets knee-deep in PCP and cocaine. Some influential people theorized the chokehold (not the drugs) to be the cause of the deaths, and this view prevailed.

The mass media played these in-custody deaths to the hilt. The city leaders wanted the chokehold controversy off the front pages and off the six o'clock news. With encouragement from the media, the holds were banned from routine use. But the policy makers and news editors (in Los Angeles, they appear to be one and the same) hadn't read their Sherlock Holmes: "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data." The stage was set for Rodney King and thousands of less famous resisting suspects to be struck with batons and kicked with boots.

First, those who seek to understand the King incident should make no mistake about Mr. King and what happened the night of March 3, 1991. The undisputed facts as established by three jury trials (two criminal and one civil) are these: King was a drunken paroled robber, briefly out of prison and by his own testimony intent on not going back. He led police on a lengthy chase, driving in excess of 100 miles per hour. He exhibited bizarre behavior, resisted arrest, and pushed away four officers before the video began and before any significant force was used on him. He was not struck while handcuffed, contrary to continuing talk-show blather. He has been arrested several times (twice for violent crimes) since the famous incident. In short, Mr. King was something more than what the media calls "a motorist." Still, he should never have been subjected to the tactics we see on the video ...BOLDING ADDED

[blowero]

Originally posted by Shodan
My perspective in the matter is, as far as I know, unique.

No, sadly it's not unique.

What a fucked-up world we live in.

That's the one sentence in your post with which I agree.

[GaWd]

I take it you do not perceive the disconnect between those two sentences.


So you think that if I have a negative opinion of say, the Pope, that means I 'hate' him? I think the world is full of assholes, but that doesn't mean I hate them.

I'm sorry you can't separate more passionate feelings like dislike or assholishness from hate. I can.

As for the rest of your post...insert rolleyes smiley..... here. There's no reason to re-hash what's been said by both sides at least 10 times.

Good day.

Sam

[GaWd]

Whatever your opinion of Airman is, it's your opinion. Got it?

Robin

Got it. And I made that known back on the third page.

Sam

[World Eater]

Doesn't it stand to reason that if I find someone to be a complete asshole on a message board, I would most likely find them to be an asshole off the boards?

It's a pretty simple assumption to make.

[blowero]

Zenster, that's crap. It doesn't matter what King did before the tape started. What matters is that the cops continued to beat on him after he was subdued. In the trial, the defense pointed to such ridiculous things as a slight movement of his leg that were supposed to show he was still resisting. The guy was prone on the ground. You seriously believe that all those big, bad cops couldn't get the cuffs on him at that point without beating the tar out of him? Yeah, King's a bad guy and he did some bad things. Guess what? Their job is to arrest him, not punish him. Any attempt to justify the beating based on what King did before is vigilantism.

[gobear]

Originally posted by World Eater
Doesn't it stand to reason that if I find someone to be a complete asshole on a message board, I would most likely find them to be an asshole off the boards?

It's a pretty simple assumption to make.

Quite possibly, but when you extrapolate that to the statement that EVERYONE, including family and friends on the boards, must find him an asshole, too, is what gets me annoyed. Simple respect for his wife, son, and his sister ought to preclude smart-ass comments about Airman's family life.

[GaWd]

And I made that known back on the third page.

Should read first, not third.

And yes Worldeater, it's a good assumption. Apparently Airman is nothing like this in person, although I only have 2 character references at this point...

Sam

[mhendo]

Originally posted by MsRobyn
However, to condemn him to assholery because of what he says on a message board is really stupid. Argumentum ad hominem, anyone? Actually, no.

Argumentum ad hominem is the fallacy of dismissing a person's arguments simply because you dislike the person, or believe their character to be bad, rather than because the argument itself is poor or illogical.

By contrast, my position (and GaWd's, i think), was to make an assertion about Airman's character based on the content of his argument. This is the precise inverse of an ad hominem argument. It is also representative of the way many reasonable people make character assessments, i.e. look at what a person says and believes, and make a judgment accordingly.

Of course, whether a person's opinions on one particular issue(such as this one) should suffice to make a blanket judgment about that person's character is another question. Usually, we weigh all of our specific observations together in order to arrive at an overall impression. However, we also give different issues different weight. For example, while i disagree with the death penalty, another person's position on that issue is not sufficient for me to make a blanket judgment about their character. OTOH, if someone believes that women who wear short skirts and get drunk deserve "whatever they get," then i would find that sufficient to make a negative assessment of the person's overall character. This is an imperfect and subjective system, but it's one that nearly everyone uses, in one way or another.

[Liberal]

Zenster

Your Totse article was very interesting. Thanks for sharing it.

[Zenster]

Originally posted by blowero
Zenster, that's crap. It doesn't matter what King did before the tape started. What matters is that the cops continued to beat on him after he was subdued. In the trial, the defense pointed to such ridiculous things as a slight movement of his leg that were supposed to show he was still resisting. The guy was prone on the ground. You seriously believe that all those big, bad cops couldn't get the cuffs on him at that point without beating the tar out of him? Yeah, King's a bad guy and he did some bad things. Guess what? Their job is to arrest him, not punish him. Any attempt to justify the beating based on what King did before is vigilantism. I'll go with the facts in evidence. As in:He exhibited bizarre behavior, resisted arrest, and pushed away four officers before the video began and before any significant force was used on him. He was not struck while handcuffed, contrary to continuing talk-show blather.BOLDING ADDED

I do not argue that excessive force was used, I just wonder how much of it King brought upon himself by his belligerence and resistance. Had the officers continued their assault upon King subsequent to cuffing him, punitive damages would have been in order. NO PUNITIVE AWARD WAS MADE. I think the jury made the right decision.

Libertarian, thank you. I found the TOTSE article to remarkably even handed in its assessment of how and why things went as they did.

[Shodan]

Originally posted by blowero

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Shodan
My perspective in the matter is, as far as I know, unique.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, sadly it's not unique.
You probably already knew this, but I meant that I had only seen the video in its entirety.

Attitudes like mine (I think he deserved what he got) are not nearly as rare.
Originally posted by blowero
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What a fucked-up world we live in.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's the one sentence in your post with which I agree. And I expect we disagree on who is more responsible for the fucked-upedness of the world - the criminals like King, or the police who have to arrest them.

The police are condemned because they can't stop on a dime when using justified force. The criminals are excused, when they don't even try.

Regards,
Shodan

[blowero]

Originally posted by Zenster
I'll go with the facts in evidence. As in:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He exhibited bizarre behavior, resisted arrest, and pushed away four officers before the video began and before any significant force was used on him.

Irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is whether it was necessary to continue to beat on him in order to subdue him. They weren't even trying to handcuff him; they were just whacking away with their clubs while he lay face down on the ground.

He was not struck while handcuffed, contrary to continuing talk-show blather.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What, is it OK to beat the shit out of a suspect as long as you don't handcuff him? Who the fuck do you think makes the decision when to handcuff the suspect? (Or in this case, the decision to keep wailing away on him before even trying to handcuff him.)

I do not argue that excessive force was used, I just wonder how much of it King brought upon himself by his belligerence and resistance. Had the officers continued their assault upon King subsequent to cuffing him, punitive damages would have been in order. NO PUNITIVE AWARD WAS MADE. I think the jury made the right decision.

Well if the officers did nothing wrong, then King shouldn't have been awarded anything. Since he got 3.8 million, what does that tell you, Mr. They-made-the-right-decision?

Libertarian, thank you. I found the TOTSE article to remarkably even handed in its assessment of how and why things went as they did.
Would you guys please stop with the little self-congratulatory circle jerk just because you found a blog that you like? You're making me puke.

[blowero]

Originally posted by Shodan
You probably already knew this, but I meant that I had only seen the video in its entirety.

No, I didn't know that was what you meant.

Attitudes like mine (I think he deserved what he got) are not nearly as rare.

Yes, that was what I was saying. I get weary of people saying "he deserved what he got". What he "deserved" was to be tried for the crimes he committed. NOBODY deserves to be punished by vigilante cops in the street. The policeman's job is to use only as much force as is necessary to get the guy into custody, no more, no less. It is NOT their job to judge what the guy "deserves" and carry out sentencing on their own.

And I expect we disagree on who is more responsible for the fucked-upedness of the world - the criminals like King, or the police who have to arrest them.

"Police" in general aren't the problem. I think the majority of them are just doing a difficult job. A few bad ones are fucking things up for everyone.

The police are condemned because they can't stop on a dime when using justified force.

Stop on a dime??????!!!!!!! Dude, they didn't stop on a FOOTBALL FIELD. And they were hardly condemned; they virtually got off scott-free.

The criminals are excused, when they don't even try.

What in the blue fuck are you talking about? We have one of the highest incarceration rates in the entire civilized world. If you want to bitch about criminals getting off easy, start with those cops.

[Zenster]

Originally posted by blowero
... Well if the officers did nothing wrong, then King shouldn't have been awarded anything. Since he got 3.8 million, what does that tell you, Mr. They-made-the-right-decision?First off, if you bothered to read the article, it was pretty clear that the jury found the officers did not use excessive force but that their training and proceedures provided ample opportunity for it to be applied. This wasn't a matter of "just following orders," it was a case of officers not being given the correct methods and tools to subdue their suspect. IT'S WHY THE JURY FOUND THE CITY AT FAULT.

Second, take your smarmy "Mr. They-made-the-right-decision" shit and ram it straight up your ass.Would you guys please stop with the little self-congratulatory circle jerk just because you found a blog that you like? You're making me puke. While you're bent over, ram this up your ass too.

Shodan said it very well. Criminals voluntarily engage in predation upon the public. They can avoid coming into contact with the law by not doing so. Police have no choice in the matter and must interpose themselves between society and the most mindless and pathological elements it contains. Try going on a ride-along program sometime, Blowero. It might open your eyes as to the shit officers have to go through on a daily basis.

[blowero]

Originally posted by Zenster
First off, if you bothered to read the article, it was pretty clear that the jury found the officers did not use excessive force but that their training and proceedures provided ample opportunity for it to be applied. This wasn't a matter of "just following orders," it was a case of officers not being given the correct methods and tools to subdue their suspect. IT'S WHY THE JURY FOUND THE CITY AT FAULT.

That is unmitigated horseshit. Your stupid-ass blog website notwithstanding, I'm sure the city told them, "Hey guys, just keep whacking the guy (who's already laying on the ground) with the club til he can't move anymore.":rolleyes:

Shodan said it very well.

Shodan has never said anything well. But I see you are welcoming him into your circle-jerk. Have fun with that.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Here's my final word on the subject.

I said exactly what I meant. I think the cops should have gotten off, and I think Rodney King was totally, absolutely, and completely at fault for the whole thing. I then posted why I thought that.

You are free to disagree with me, as most of you have. You are free to condemn me, as most of you have. I won't say that I'm real happy about that, but that's the way it goes sometimes when you say things that aren't particularly popular.

There is one thing that is completely unacceptable, though. That is the disparagement of my family. Do I insult your families? Am I not a big enough target? Leave my wife and son out of this. My opinions are every bit my own, so direct your vitriol where it belongs.

Whatever you say on the SDMB, as far as I am concerned, stays right here. My archenemy here, Reeder, is almost certainly a nice guy, no matter what he portrays himself as here. I bear him no ill will, but I will call bullshit when he says something I don't agree with. That's the deal. Gobear and I are very far apart on things like gay marriage and the like, yet we have it out here and then we have a beer and talk.

If you choose to condemn me because you disagree with me, that's your prerogative. But I'm telling you, that is a gross misjudgment on your behalf. You have no idea what someone is like in person until you meet them.

So that's it. I have nothing else to say. I reported the news, I gave my opinion, I supported it, and if you don't like it, well, sorry. So be it.

Dave

[World Eater]

Originally posted by Zenster
Try going on a ride-along program sometime, Blowero. It might open your eyes as to the shit officers have to go through on a daily basis.

Like shooting people 41 times, sodomizing them with plunger handles, smashing their heads into car hoods, or just a good 'ol fashion 4 cops vs one guy on the ground shit kicking.

99% are good in my book, but the bad ones can be bad.

[mhendo]

Originally posted by Shodan
The police are condemned because they can't stop on a dime when using justified force. The criminals are excused, when they don't even try. You conservatives love trotting out that old shibboleth, don't you.

That's right, folks. Everyone who opposes police brutality is also a supporter of criminal behavior.

What some of the dopier Dopers don't seem to realize is that the following two opinions:

1) Rodney King is a criminal and an asshole

2) There is no excuse for excessive use of force by police.

do not represent mutually exclusive positions.

And in case you don't get it, this applies on a general level as well. I am full of admiration for cops who really see themselves as peace officers and who do their best in a difficult job. And i have little time for wife-beaters, drug-dealers, murderers and all the other assholes who make police work such a strain. My father is a retired cop.

But the difficulty of police work does not excuse brutality. If you can't cope, don't do the work. Good cops agree with this just as much as we evil leftists and liberals do.

[Guinastasia]

I think yosemitebabe nailed it.

And I also think you guys should lay off Airman Doors. Yeah, he's got a temper, but he's also a pretty nice guy.

As for King-yeah, that beating from the police was wrong. The officers involved were wrong.

BUT...that does not make King the good guy. He's an ass. He beat his wife. Shitheads beat their wives. Good guys don't.

[chique]

Originally posted by Zenster
I'm the only big nasty cold hearted and evil brute at these boards who wishes harm upon people.No. But you are one of two in this thread and I figured AD had gotten enough abuse already. I simply cannot see why anyone would want something done to a human being that you would not want done to a cat.

Which is why I say "hypocritical". You would go ballistic if anyone did to a cat what you want done to Rodney King. Go whizz in your own cheerios sometime and see how you like the flavor.So don't piss in my ear and tell me it's raining. What the hell are those two comments supposed to mean? I don't get it. Are you trying to insinuate that I'm as much of a hypocrite as you?Great post, Raven! Any of this getting through, chique?What, that some people think vigilante justice or extrajudicial punishment justice is A OK? Loud and clear. And neither have any place in my idea of a civilized society.

[gobear]

Well, Mhendo, I owe you a qualified apology. Dave is a great guy (despite his gruff demeanor he is just about the most stand-up guy you could meet), I can no longer defend his post as being merely facetious. I did not think he was being truly serious in endorsing police brutality. Now that he has clarified his position, I have to disavow any support of his initial post. Mhendo was right; I was wrong.

But Gawd is still wrong to have brought Airman's family into the discussion.

I disagree with Airman on many things, but he is my friend and that trumps any other issues as far as I am concerned.

[Badtz Maru]

He's probably psycho in person too, and they just say he's nice because they are afraid of him!!!

[bojon]

AIRMAN DOORS USAF, your opinion is the same as as great deal of people. Rock on..............Come to LA, we'll treat you like a king.....

[Zenster]

Originally posted by bojon
AIRMAN DOORS USAF, your opinion is the same as as great deal of people. Rock on..............Come to LA, we'll treat you like a king..... Yeah, sure. But which kind of King?

[World Eater]

I'm still befuddled about this online/offline asshole/swellguy dissconnect.

I guess one of the deep mysteries of the universe.

[World Eater]

Originally posted by bojon
AIRMAN DOORS USAF, your opinion is the same as as great deal of people. Rock on..............Come to LA, we'll treat you like a king.....

And you are a fucking ass!

:rolleyes:

[El Cid Viscoso]

Originally posted by World Eater

I'm still befuddled about this online/offline asshole/swellguy dissconnect. It's the "magic beans." I'm sure Dean Koontz is a nice guy, deep down...

[Reeder]

Whatever you say on the SDMB, as far as I am concerned, stays right here. My archenemy here, Reeder...

Wow...I have an archenemy?? I've never had an arch anything before.

Well..I do have arches.

I'm impressed.

As for the OP...This is not the first time wingnut has shown himself to be a jerk. Y'all reckon he was a Brownshirt in a former life?

[Zenster]

Arches, I remember them.

I once had Roman arches, but they fell.

Do you know how painful the inserts are for Roman arches?

[samclem]

gobear, Airman Doors has been an ass for the past couple of weeks.
So, Juanita. You're saying you've been asleep for the previous two and one half years? :eek:

[blowero]

Originally posted by mhendo
That's right, folks. Everyone who opposes police brutality is also a supporter of criminal behavior.

What some of the dopier Dopers don't seem to realize is that the following two opinions:

1) Rodney King is a criminal and an asshole

2) There is no excuse for excessive use of force by police.

do not represent mutually exclusive positions.

And in case you don't get it, this applies on a general level as well. I am full of admiration for cops who really see themselves as peace officers and who do their best in a difficult job. And i have little time for wife-beaters, drug-dealers, murderers and all the other assholes who make police work such a strain.
...
But the difficulty of police work does not excuse brutality. If you can't cope, don't do the work.
...

Couldn't have said it better myself.

And Airman, speaking for myself, any comments I have made are solely in response to what you have posted. If my comments were nasty, it's because I vehemently disagreed with what you said. As far as what kind of a person you are at home, I don't think that's any of my business.

[Shodan]

Originally posted by mhendo
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Shodan
The police are condemned because they can't stop on a dime when using justified force. The criminals are excused, when they don't even try.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You conservatives love trotting out that old shibboleth, don't you.

That's right, folks. Everyone who opposes police brutality is also a supporter of criminal behavior.
No, not everyone.

But if Rodney King violently resists arrest, while on parole from prison and driving drunk, and get $3.8 million and a walk on his crimes, and the arresting officers go to prison for hitting him six times more than he needed to be, I would call that condemning the police and excusing the criminal.

And when someone posts something as stupid and inflammatory as World Eater did, and implies that shooting people and sodomizing them with broom handles is a daily occurence for the police, I would say that too much weight is being given to alleged incidents of brutality by the police and not enough to the crimes that trigger the incidents. As, again, with Rodney King.

Originally posted by blowero
Stop on a dime??????!!!!!!! Dude, they didn't stop on a FOOTBALL FIELD. And they were hardly condemned; they virtually got off scott-free. Two and a half years in prison is virtually scot-free?

The findings of the first trial was that of the 56 times King got hit, all but the last five or six were justified as necessary force used to effect an arrest. But you call an error of roughly +10% more than a "FOOTBALL FIELD" away.

Hmmmm......

Regards,
Shodan

[Beagle]

Glad mhendo was nice enough to explain that as I was a bit short. "Crocodile wrestling," as I said, does not involve beating the crocodile with clubs when it is lying on the ground. To flog the analogy, then you jump on it and duct tape it.

[World Eater]

Originally posted by Shodan
No, not everyone.

But if Rodney King violently resists arrest, while on parole from prison and driving drunk, and get $3.8 million and a walk on his crimes, and the arresting officers go to prison for hitting him six times more than he needed to be, I would call that condemning the police and excusing the criminal.

The question is was he violently resisting arrest? As far as everything being peachy until the last 6 hits, I'll have to disagree with you there. I would have thrown King and the Cops in jail, and no $3.8 million.

And when someone posts something as stupid and inflammatory as World Eater did, and implies that shooting people and sodomizing them with broom handles is a daily occurence for the police

Just pointing out that a few officers are capable of horrible acts at worst and shitty judgement at best. It is a perfectly reasonable assumption that the King officers could have been part of this very small minority.

I would say that too much weight is being given to alleged incidents of brutality by the police and not enough to the crimes that trigger the incidents. As, again, with Rodney King.

King is a grade A asshole and criminal, no dispute there, but spin it anyway you want, he didn't deserve that beatdown


The findings of the first trial was that of the 56 times King got hit, all but the last five or six were justified as necessary force used to effect an arrest. But you call an error of roughly +10% more than a "FOOTBALL FIELD" away.

I happen to think this is a load of shit, YMMV.

[LonesomePolecat]

Originally posted by UncleBill
Quit being a twit, Airman Doors, USAF. Advocating the beating of a man when he is NOT resisting arrest is low ...

If you think King wasn't resisting arrest, you are a total shitbrain.

[Beagle]

If what happened to Rodeny King reflected LAPD policy of how to take down an irrational, violent suspect alleged to be a PCP user --- LA needs to take some lessons from the Philly cops. Talking to him and whacking him with clubs to get compliance is bound not to work, and is a shitty policy to begin with.

[Shodan]

Originally posted by Beagle
If what happened to Rodeny King reflected LAPD policy of how to take down an irrational, violent suspect alleged to be a PCP user --- LA needs to take some lessons from the Philly cops. Talking to him and whacking him with clubs to get compliance is bound not to work, and is a shitty policy to begin with. The trouble being that choke holds and other kinds of restraint tactics are illegal under California state law, the idea being to arrest suspects in a more humane way. IIRC, this was triggered by the death of some suspects after being choked out. LAPD had no choice in the matter - the Tazers didn't work.

Originally posted by World Eater
The question is was he violently resisting arrest? As far as everything being peachy until the last 6 hits, I'll have to disagree with you there.
It depends on how you define "violently resisting arrest". If your definition includes trying to escape by driving at over 100 mph (while legally drunk), charging the police multiple times, getting knocked down and getting back up repeatedly, being Tazered (twice) and continuing to fight, yes, I guess you could say he was "violently resisting arrest".

If your understanding was that he was on his way home from choir practice, got pulled over for a busted headlight or something, was asked politely to step out of the car, complied, and then was beaten senseless for Driving While Black, you may want to reconsider your position. As I think I mentioned, the two other people in the car, who did NOT resist arrest, weren't beaten, and they were just as black as King is.

King was not beaten because of any desire by the police towards vigilantism. He was beaten in an attempt to arrest him, because the police had already exhausted every other option available to them under state law. And the beating went on about 10% too long.

As I said, the police were condemned because they could not or did not stop hitting a big, mean, drunken convicted felon who was determined not to return to prison and resisted arrest quite soon enough.

Originally posted by World Eater
I would have thrown King and the Cops in jail, and no $3.8 million.
I agree with two thirds of this.

Regards,
Shodan

[blowero]

O.K., time to dispel some ignorance:

Originally posted by Shodan
But if Rodney King violently resists arrest, while on parole from prison and driving drunk, and get $3.8 million and a walk on his crimes, and the arresting officers go to prison for hitting him six times more than he needed to be, I would call that condemning the police and excusing the criminal.

The first trial was a sham. Anyone who saw the video, and has 2 brain cells to rub together, can see that "hitting him six times more than he needed to be", is the understatement of the last two centuries.

http://www.crimsonbird.com/history/rodneyking.htm

When police finally stopped the car, they delivered 56 baton blows and six kicks to King, in a period of two minutes, producing 11 skull fractures, brain damage, and kidney damage.
...
The trial of the police officers was relocated from Los Angeles to the suburb of Simi Valley, in Ventura County, despite objections of the prosecution that the two communities have "different demographics." The jury was selected from a neighborhood in which many people have friends or family members who are police officers, but the likelihood of pro-police bias was not viewed by the court as a prejudice to dismiss prospective jurors.

On the witness stand, Koon and Powell explained that they beat Rodney King because he failed to follow instructions. Specifically, although King did lie face-down on the ground, as the officers instructed him to, he ignored their orders to keep his arms straight out to the sides. He had his elbows bent, with his hands closer to his shoulders. Police described this as "a push-up position" and interpreted it as an indication that King was preparing to try to get up off the ground. Therefore, Koon and Powell insisted, they were not permitted by the rule book to handcuff King at that time; they were required by regulations to continue to beat King with their batons, and shock him with the taser, until such time as his arms would be straight, and only then, handcuff him.

The number of police on the scene when Rodney King was beaten included 21 officers from the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and 4 officers from the California Highway Patrol. With 25 officers present, it would have been feasible to handcuff King at any time. Nevertheless, Koon and Powell testified, formal police procedures forbade them to handcuff the suspect until he complied with their orders to straighten his arm out.

...

Briseno testified that King was [b]lying on the ground, and not trying to get up, when the other officers continued to beat and kick him. When asked under oath whether King "never tried to get up," Briseno replied, "That's correct." Briseno was asked why he can be seen pushing Powell away from King, at a particular point in the video. Briseno explained: "I didn't see Mr. King moving, and I thought Officer Powell was out of control." He elaborated: "I just couldn't understand why they were continuing what I saw there was no reason for."

Police officer Melanie Singer of the California Highway Patrol had driven the patrol car that chased King's car. She was the first officer to instruct King to move away from the vehicle and to assume a prone position on the ground. However, the other officers then took over. Later in court, Singer testified that King at first danced around jokingly, wiggling his buttocks, but eventually followed police instructions to lie face-down on the ground. She described in vivid terms how the baton blows "split open King's face" and "blood poured out," while King "screamed." She said the other officers used the baton with "power strokes" (motions similar the swinging of a baseball bat.) She testified that it was her opinion that excessive police force was used.
[Blowero's comment: OTHER OFFICERS ON THE SCENE thought excessive force was used. What does that tell you?]

The jury consisted of ten whites, one Hispanic, and one Filipino-American. There were no blacks on the jury. In fact, Simi Valley is a predominately white community that is known for being a favorite place for police officers to live. But hey, Shodan, why don't you just go ahead and continue spouting off about the findings of that jury as if it's incontrovertible fact.:rolleyes:

Two and a half years in prison is virtually scot-free?

Get your facts straight; they only served 2 years. And read this (from the Crimson Bird article):

August 4, 1993 -- The sentencing date of Koon and Powell. The maximum allowed penalty would have been 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. They were sentenced to 30 months in prison.

Koon and Powell were sent to the Federal Prison Camp at Dublin, California. The prison is one often used to house so-called white-collar criminals (e.g., Wall Street tycoon Michael Milken spent two years there). The prison is nicknamed "Club Fed" because it is "a prison without walls, fences, bars, gun towers or guns", and escapees are called "walkaways." Prisoners eat in a dining room with a salad bar, and are provided recreational facilities, including video rentals, gardening, a asphalt jogging track, a sand volleyball court, and a weightlifting room. (From the Los Angeles Times, October 13, 1993) Controversy was raised when this facility was compared to California's other prisons, which have "death fences" designed to electrocute escapees. (Los Angeles Times, October 27, 1993).

http://www.cali.org/riots/time_line.html

Laurence Powell and Stacey Koon are released from prison after serving 24 months of their sentences.

24 months in a country club prison? Yeah, that's pretty light, considering what they did.

[blowero]

Originally posted by Shodan
It depends on how you define "violently resisting arrest". If your definition includes trying to escape by driving at over 100 mph (while legally drunk)

The fact that you see a connection between the speed King was driving, and what the cops did to him after he was lying on the ground shows that you have no clue what you're talking about. The ONLY issue is whether they needed to continue hitting him in order to take him into custody. Driving 100 mph has got fuck-all to do with it.

charging the police multiple times, getting knocked down and getting back up repeatedly, being Tazered (twice) and continuing to fight, yes, I guess you could say he was "violently resisting arrest"

Uh, that's not what the officers were tried for. They were tried for what they did AFTER King was lying on the ground. You don't seem to understand the difference between restraint and punishment.

King was not beaten because of any desire by the police towards vigilantism. He was beaten in an attempt to arrest him, because the police had already exhausted every other option available to them under state law. And the beating went on about 10% too long.

Even if your "10% too long" were not completely arbitrary, and quite obviously a gross underestimate, the fact would still remain that they shouldn't have "gone on too long" AT ALL. A good rule of thumb might be: If the suspect is lying motionless on the ground, you maybe would want to think about stopping busting his skull open.

As I said, the police were condemned because they could not or did not stop hitting a big, mean, drunken convicted felon who was determined not to return to prison and resisted arrest quite soon enough.

Despite the absurd spin you're trying to put on it, I can see that you agree that the officers in question did wrong. That is, unless you think their job description includes hitting people "for too long".

[Blonde]

I doubt anyone would agree what the police did that day was humane or right - but it sort of sucks to think so many lost their lives in the aftermath for the sake of a man who turned out to be a loser, eh?

[blowero]

Originally posted by Blonde
I doubt anyone would agree what the police did that day was humane or right

Well, you wouldn't think so, but then our friends Airman and Shodan seem to think it was perfectly justified.

- but it sort of sucks to think so many lost their lives in the aftermath for the sake of a man who turned out to be a loser, eh?
I don't think anyone's saying King is a saint or anything; that's not the point. Christ, you guys are treating this like it's news or something - like people were planning to elect him president until this latest news story came out. We've known the guy was a loser for years. Unless you are saying that the police are justified in beating people up for being losers, I don't see what your point is.

[Beagle]

If that is the case, CA needs to figure out some what to restrain people without beating or shooting them -- and also without holding them.

I know CA leads the way on a number of things, but sometimes they lead the way right over a cliff -- like the fastest lemming.

[Beagle]

"some way" became "some what" -- input generic "coffee" excuse. Hey, I'm a caffeine junkie.

[Shodan]

Originally posted by blowero

The first trial was a sham. Anyone who saw the video, and has 2 brain cells to rub together, can see that "hitting him six times more than he needed to be", is the understatement of the last two centuries.

The trouble is, the jury in the first trial saw the whole video, and heard the case for the defense. No one who only saw the doctored version played on the networks had the same opportunity. Those who draw conclusions based on biased and incomplete evidence are the ones who lack "2 brain cells to rub together".
Originally posted by blowero

The jury consisted of ten whites, one Hispanic, and one Filipino-American. There were no blacks on the jury. In fact, Simi Valley is a predominately white community that is known for being a favorite place for police officers to live. But hey, Shodan, why don't you just go ahead and continue spouting off about the findings of that jury as if it's incontrovertible fact.:rolleyes:
So any jury should be trusted or not based on the color of their skin?

The second jury was convened after the asshole element of South Central LA had rioted. It was rather clear that there were going to be more riots, if the police officers involved were not punished. Don't you think that might have been at least as significant a factor for the second trial as the color of the jurors in the first?

And yet you accept the findings of the one as "incontrovertible fact", and not the other. Why is that - because they agreed with what you conclude based on a viewing of a doctored version of the videotape?

Originally posted by blowero

Get your facts straight; they only served 2 years.
Get your facts straight - they were sentenced to two and a half. Are you claiming that anything six months short of the full sentence is getting off scot-free? Would you say that Rodney King got off scot-free from his robbery conviction, because he was out on parole?
Originally posted by blowero

The fact that you see a connection between the speed King was driving, and what the cops did to him after he was lying on the ground shows that you have no clue what you're talking about.
Don't talk nonsense.

King, by his own admission, was not going to be taken back to the prison from which he was paroled if he could help it. Which is why he tried to escape at 100mph, and which is why he resisted arrest. And why he was beaten - because he resisted arrest.

Do you seriously suggest that whether or not a felon tries to escape at that speed, and presents that serious a danger to the public, has no correlation to whether he is going to surrender meekly if the police say, "Pretty please"?

Which is why your attempt to describe the circumstances of King's arrest is so worthless - because you are falling into the same error as the networks who edited the videotape. You are leaving out all references to why the police felt it necessary to beat King.

Because he didn't tamely get out of the car and surrender - he resisted arrest.

According to both prosecution and defense witnesses, King, who at 6'3" and 230 pounds was much bigger than any of the arresting officers and highly intoxicated, would not assume the prone position although he did eventually get down on all fours. However, since the police could not get the cuffs on him in that position, King was able to shake them off and stand up.

At this point, Sgt. Stacey Koon (one of the defendants) ordered his men to fall back in order that he might use the next level of approved force --- a Taser gun. This is a weapon which fires a dart containing an electric shock so powerful that a single shot usually is enough to subdue an offender.

However, when Koon ordered King to get down or get shot, King did not obey, but advanced on Koon, who fired a first dart. Since King was still standing, Koon again ordered him to get down or take another dart. When King refused, Koon fired again and King fell.

It was at this point that the camera began rolling. During the first few seconds, despite the Taser darts, King jumped up, wheeled around and lunged at defendant Laurence Powell, who retaliated by striking King down with his baton. Powell then hit King about ten times, with the tape showing King trying to get up.


Cite. (http://www.freedomparty.org/consent/cons17_4.htm)
Originally posted by blowero

Even if your "10% too long" were not completely arbitrary, and quite obviously a gross underestimate, the fact would still remain that they shouldn't have "gone on too long" AT ALL. A good rule of thumb might be: If the suspect is lying motionless on the ground, you maybe would want to think about stopping busting his skull open.
Again, this is stupid.

The findings of the jury were, that of the 56 times King was struck, all but the last five or six were justified. 56/5.5 is 10.18%. "Close enough for government work", as they say, and not arbitrary at all.

The other two in the car did get out and comply. And the police didn't even start thinking about busting their skulls open. And, if Rodney King had done the same, he would have been treated the same. But, since he resisted arrest, after fleeing the scene, and continued to resist arrest after the police implemented the official policy on force escalation of the LAPD (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/kingforce.html) , and since it is extremely difficult to stop on a dime under the stress of a violent arrest of a paroled, drunken felon who is resisting, the idea that it is inexcusable that King got whacked a few too many times is dumb.
Originally posted by blowero

Despite the absurd spin you're trying to put on it, I can see that you agree that the officers in question did wrong. That is, unless you think their job description includes hitting people "for too long". No, the idea that I would join in the condemnation of the police, based on the biased and incomplete presentation of part of the evidence, and without consideration of the circumstances of the arrest, is "absurd spin".

I think their job description includes arresting the dangerous felons of LA, when they present a danger to the public, and using all necessary force in doing so. And comparing the actions of the police, with the actions of King, both before, during, and after his arrest in 1991, I conclude that King presents by far the greater danger, and that 90% or more of the blame in the case devolves on him.

The guy is an asshole, and has been behaving like one for the last dozen years. What makes you think he wasn't being just as big an asshole that night in 1991?

And arresting assholes is not a job that can be done half-heartedly.

Regards,
Shodan

[blowero]

Originally posted by Shodan
The trouble is, the jury in the first trial saw the whole video, and heard the case for the defense. No one who only saw the doctored version played on the networks had the same opportunity. Those who draw conclusions based on biased and incomplete evidence are the ones who lack "2 brain cells to rub together".

Hmmm...the CHP officer who WAS THERE AT THE SCENE the whole time testified that excessive force was used. I guess everyone who disagrees with YOU is biased, huh? You still aren't getting this. Do you understand that cops cannot beat a suspect who is lying on the ground? If you think that all those cops couldn't have put the cuffs on King at that point because his "arms were bent", you are a fucking idiot. You keep going back to what happened before. You are oblivious to the fact that that is NOT THE ISSUE. Yes, if King charged the officer, he is allowed to hit him with the baton to disable him. And I'm all for that. But once he's lying on the ground, they DON'T GET TO KEEP CRACKING HIS SKULL. Not 10%, Not 20%, Not 100%. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Doesn't matter if he was a bad man, or if the cops are really angry, they don't get to do that. If they don't like it, they need to get another job.

So any jury should be trusted or not based on the color of their skin?

Don't be an asshole. It's unfair to try policemen with a jury almost entirely composed of people who are strongly biased in favor of policemen. By the same token, if you were accused of killing a black man, you probably wouldn't want a jury of 12 Black Panther members. They MOVED the trial just so they could get a pro-police jury.

The second jury was convened after the asshole element of South Central LA had rioted. It was rather clear that there were going to be more riots, if the police officers involved were not punished. Don't you think that might have been at least as significant a factor for the second trial as the color of the jurors in the first?

Yeah, I think politics was heavily involved. That doesn't mean the first trial wasn't utter bullshit, though.

And yet you accept the findings of the one as "incontrovertible fact", and not the other. Why is that - because they agreed with what you conclude based on a viewing of a doctored version of the videotape?

I didn't say it was incontrovertable fact, and I'm not familiar with what you're saying about the tape being doctored. Do you have a cite for that?

Get your facts straight - they were sentenced to two and a half.

You said they SERVED 2 1/2, not SENTENCED, butthole.

Are you claiming that anything six months short of the full sentence is getting off scot-free?

Did I SAY that, asswipe?

King, by his own admission, was not going to be taken back to the prison from which he was paroled if he could help it. Which is why he tried to escape at 100mph, and which is why he resisted arrest. And why he was beaten - because he resisted arrest.

Bullshit. He was LYING ON THE GROUND. Once again I will explain to you that what the cops did up to the point that King was lying face down on the ground IS NOT AT ISSUE. It was AFTER that, when they began "hitting home runs" on his head, kicking him, etc., and when BY THE TESTIMONY OF OTHER POLICE OFFICERS, King was not even trying to get up.

Do you seriously suggest that whether or not a felon tries to escape at that speed, and presents that serious a danger to the public, has no correlation to whether he is going to surrender meekly if the police say, "Pretty please"?

I sure wish you would actually read what I wrote. I said the police are not allowed to PUNISH him for what he did. They don't get to beat up people who are lying prone on the ground, period. No, no matter how fast they drive or how much they beat their wives ten years later. That's the job of the judicial system. Man, are you dense.

Which is why your attempt to describe the circumstances of King's arrest is so worthless - because you are falling into the same error as the networks who edited the videotape. You are leaving out all references to why the police felt it necessary to beat King.

If it was so "necessary" to continue to beat him after he was lying on the ground, why on Earth would another officer feel it necessary to push Powell out of the way because he was "out of control"? The fact is that they could have put the cuffs on him at any time while he was lying on the ground. The defense came up with some lame bullshit about how his arms being slightly bent forbade them from putting cuffs on him, and you (as well as the pro-police jury) bought that garbage hook, line, and sinker.

The findings of the jury were, that of the 56 times King was struck, all but the last five or six were justified.

"The findings of the jury", "The findings of the jury", "The findings of the jury". You sound like a fucking parrot. The jury was WRONG. They were biased. My God, man - how much evidence do you need?

56/5.5 is 10.18%. "Close enough for government work", as they say, and not arbitrary at all.

Close enough, huh? 11 skull fractures, brain damage, and kidney damage is close enough in your book, eh?

No, the idea that I would join in the condemnation of the police, based on the biased and incomplete presentation of part of the evidence, and without consideration of the circumstances of the arrest, is "absurd spin".

Look, either they beat the guy while he was subdued, or they didn't. If they did, then it was wrong. Period.

I think their job description includes arresting the dangerous felons of LA, when they present a danger to the public, and using all necessary force in doing so. And comparing the actions of the police, with the actions of King, both before, during, and after his arrest in 1991, I conclude that King presents by far the greater danger, and that 90% or more of the blame in the case devolves on him.

The guy is an asshole, and has been behaving like one for the last dozen years. What makes you think he wasn't being just as big an asshole that night in 1991?

Since when is the penalty for being an asshole to administer skull fractures, brain damage, and kidney damage? Yes, the police have to deal with assholes and dangerous felons. That's their JOB. And I'm all for them doing whatever they need to do to get the job done and protect themselves. But I am vehemently against them administering vigilante justice by beating up already subdued suspects.

[Beagle]

I thought the part about nets being available in other jurisdictions was interesting.

I question whether the "swarm" of officers was really given a chance to work --- it's the lying down. How can you get around the golden opportunity presented once they got King mostly face down? With all those cops, a real "swarm" would have worked.

Just because "batons" come after "swarm" doesn't mean the police should not literally jump on a golden opportunity to do it. Is the policy to only go up the escalation chain? That can't be right.

[blowero]

Originally posted by Beagle
I thought the part about nets being available in other jurisdictions was interesting.

I question whether the "swarm" of officers was really given a chance to work --- it's the lying down. How can you get around the golden opportunity presented once they got King mostly face down? With all those cops, a real "swarm" would have worked.

Just because "batons" come after "swarm" doesn't mean the police should not literally jump on a golden opportunity to do it. Is the policy to only go up the escalation chain? That can't be right.
Also, why does the report say "swarm" was the last type of force used?