Rodney King Beating

[Lissa]

@LouisB

What are the proper techniques for subduing a suspect? Particularly a large, enraged, suspect who has withstood two taserings and who continued to physically attack police officers. I’m not being sarcastic, I would really like to know.

I’ve been reading a bit before I answer this, and it appears that some of the techniques used were legitimate at the time. There have been a lot of changes since this incident.

It appears that at least one of the officers was poorly trained. From this article:

Powell was a very poorly trained officer. He was also sort of a window into the lapses in training and the decline in professionalism of the LAPD He had, at roll call at Foothill station, been asked by total coincidence to demonstrate the use of the power stroke of the metal baton that the LAPD officers used…and he failed. He abysmally failed.

Everybody who I have ever talked to, no matter what their opinion is, who knows anything about police work said he was using this baton totally improperly, and had he known how to use it, you wouldn’t have had a King case either, because he probably would have broken King’s clavicle – his collarbone – with the very first blow, had it been delivered properly, and King would have gone down then.

At one point during the trial, Officer Briseno stomped on King’s shoulder, rather than kneel on it as policy dictated: (From this article)

Briseno testified that the stomp was an effort to get King down so that the other officers would stop their clubbing. He said he stomped on King–rather than put his knee on him, as LAPD policy dictates–because he feared getting accidentally struck by a baton if he lowered himself to his knees.

I’ll just say that if batons are flying so wildly that an officer may be struck by mistake, it’s not exactly a “controlled use of force.” The correct use of the baton at the time was to strike the suspect in the body (NOT the head) and then retreat to see if the blow had any effect before applying another.

From some of the court documents. (Appeal)

At 1:07 on the tape, Briseno stomped on King’s upper back or neck. After King writhed reflexively, Powell and Wind hit King with a series of baton blows, and Wind kicked him in the upper thoracic or cervical area six times, until approximately 1:26. At approximately 1:29, King put his hands behind his neck and be was then handcuffed. Pet. App. 3a, 102a.

Kicking a suspect in the chest is not an acceptable use of force.

As the LA Chief of Police said later:

We certainly were not in a deadly force situation. With the number of officers there, it was time for someone to make a decision that the baton strikes weren’t working. He was not being any more cooperative. Just sheer body weight would have taken him into control in the sense of the number of officers that were present. . . .

[Renob]

If you want a thoroughly researched answer to this question, pick up Lou Cannon’s Official Negligence, probably the best book out there for sorting out the facts of the case.

From what I recall from the book, the officers were more or less following proper procedure when subduing King, although the beating did get somewhat out of hand. That’s not to say the procedures themselves weren’t flawed, but the did not go much outside the book in the case. The fact that they were first acquitted on the charges brought against them support this. The fact that a federal jury convicted them of lesser charges after the riots speaks more, I think, to being intimidated by the prospect of more riots.

What a lot of people forget is that the video only depicts the end of the police/King confrontation. King led the cops on a long car chase and repeatedly lunged at them and resisted arrest before the camera started to roll. His refusal to obey police commands, as well as his seeming immunity to being tasered, led the police to take the actions they took. And while we can second-guess them now and say it was excessive, I doubt the police were simply being sadistic when trying to subdue King. What were they supposed to do? Simply let a dangerous suspect ignore their commands and rise to his feet to charge them again?

[John_Mace]

@Diogenes the Cynic

A federal jury said they committed a crime.

Did it? It thought that was a civil court, not a criminal court. Maybe you can give us a cite with the details.

[Lemur866]

And of course, any discussion of the Rodney King beating isn’t complete without Chris Rock describing how not to get your ass kicked by the police.

Chris Rock - Beat by the Police

[John_Mace]

@Lemur866

And of course, any discussion of the Rodney King beating isn’t complete without Chris Rock describing how not to get your ass kicked by the police.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2wOxnAiIVs

Is anything not on YouTube now? Thank God video (movie) cameras were rare when I was a kid…

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@John Mace

Did it? It thought that was a civil court, not a criminal court. Maybe you can give us a cite with the details.

Cite

After the first criminal trial they were federally charged with violating King’s civil rights (under a federal statute that allows prosecution of individuals who violate civil rights “under the color of the law,” i.e. people acting under government authority).

Only two of the five officers were convicted, though.

I found it interesting to note after reviewing the above linked page that George Bush Sr. thought the cops were guilty and was a moving force behind bring the federal charges.

Even as the rioting continued, President George Bush and Attorney General William Barr began the process of bringing federal charges against the four LAPD officers accused in the King case. On the day after the Simi Valley verdict, Bush issued a statement declaring that the verdict “has left us all with a deep sense of personal frustration and anguish.” In a May 1 televised address to the nation, Bush all but promised a federal prosecution of the officers.

[brickbacon]

@Renob

What a lot of people forget is that the video only depicts the end of the police/King confrontation. King led the cops on a long car chase and repeatedly lunged at them and resisted arrest before the camera started to roll. His refusal to obey police commands, as well as his seeming immunity to being tasered, led the police to take the actions they took. And while we can second-guess them now and say it was excessive, I doubt the police were simply being sadistic when trying to subdue King. What were they supposed to do? Simply let a dangerous suspect ignore their commands and rise to his feet to charge them again?

I think most of what you’ve said here is in dispute. I’m sure that is the official police account, but that doesn’t make it true.

[treis]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I love how people exaggerate ineffectual little twitches from a guy who is lying semi-conscious and beaten half to death on the ground into “resisting arrest” or “attacking police officers.” Funny that the federal jury didn’t think the cops were defending themselves. I wonder why.

King took a swing at a cop at the beginning of the King video, which of course the media failed to show, but that’s another story. King took a mighty baton strike to the face after this swing that probably put him down for the count.

[John_Mace]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Cite

After the first criminal trial they were federally charged with violating King’s civil rights (under a federal statute that allows prosecution of individuals who violate civil rights “under the color of the law,” i.e. people acting under government authority).

Ah, yes. I had forgotten about that trial.

[you_with_the_face]

@treis

King took a swing at a cop at the beginning of the King video, which of course the media failed to show, but that’s another story. King took a mighty baton strike to the face after this swing that probably put him down for the count.

So what would make the dozen or so subsequent blows to the head necessary?

[treis]

@you with the face

So what would make the dozen or so subsequent blows to the head necessary?

In hindsight? Probably not. But King still had plenty of fight in him even if he was physically unable to continue. It’s tough to see in the middle of a physical fight when someone is done when they are still trying to fight back.

[Renob]

@brickbacon

I think most of what you’ve said here is in dispute. I’m sure that is the official police account, but that doesn’t make it true.

Certainly my opinion that we should be generous to the officers in hindsight is in dispute, but King’s actions before the videotape started are pretty well established. He refused to comply with police commands, when four police officers “swarmed” him he threw them all off, he lunged at the cops, and withstood two Taser shots. According to the police, they thought he was on PCP and that explains much about their use of force. Check out the second chapter of the Cannon book if you want an authoritative source.

Again, in hindsight we can all probably agree the cops went overboard. But would we say the same thing if we were in their position at that time? I think they acted rationally given their perception of the situation.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

King’s actions before the videotape are irrelevant. It’s not the cops’ job to dish out punishment for prior bad acts. All that matters is whether their actions after he was down were necessary. I agree with former President Bush that they went criminally too far.

For the cop supporters, does it bother you that the cops lied about what happened before they knew there was a videotape?

[Renob]

@Diogenes the Cynic

King’s actions before the videotape are irrelevant.

No, they aren’t. They explain why the cops acted the way they did, especially if they felt he was on PCP.

It’s not the cops’ job to dish out punishment for prior bad acts.

It’s not about punishment, it’s about subduing a large felon who refuses to obey a simple order to stay down and whom they think is on PCP.

All that matters is whether their actions after he was down were necessary.

No, all that matters is if the police thought their actions after he was down were necessary and if that belief is justified by the circumstances. I think the evidence shows that they were justified in holding this belief.

I agree with former President Bush that they went criminally too far.

I was unaware that Bush was an expert on either the Rodney King case or on police procedures to subdue violent felons.

For the cop supporters, does it bother you that the cops lied about what happened before they knew there was a videotape?

I don’t think they did lie. There were conflicting statements but it seems clear that these statements were due to the confusion at the scene.

Upon more re-reading of the Cannon book, Cannon places a lot of the blame on the fact that officers weren’t properly trained in how to subdue a large, drunken, violent suspect such as King.

[bdgr]

well, I’ve been involved in probably over a 100 restraints of drunk or crazy people. I worked as a bouncer in a large cowboy bar, and later as a psych tech in a locked psych ward. Some of these people were as large and out of control, so I speak from experiance.

If there had been one or two officers there…they would have been justified in using whatever force they needed to, up to and including shooting the man if thats what it took.

Four or five officers, especially when he’s on the ground should be able to handle it…ten, or more and its a no brainer.

[BMalion]

@Smitty

No one in this sorry event did the right thing, but, all in all, I’d say pretty much everyone involved got what they deserved.

Except East L.A. and Reginald Denny

[you_with_the_face]

@Renob

Again, in hindsight we can all probably agree the cops went overboard. But would we say the same thing if we were in their position at that time? I think they acted rationally given their perception of the situation.

Sorry, but I fail to see how a man who is laying on the ground with arms raised and no weapons in sight constitutes a threat formidable enough that his head needs to be turned into a pinata before 20 semi-odd officers can restrain and arrest him.

[John_Mace]

@you with the face

Sorry, but I fail to see how a man who is laying on the ground with arms raised and no weapons in sight constitutes a threat formidable enough that his head needs to be turned into a pinata before 20 semi-odd officers can restrain and arrest him.

Not that I’m defending their actions, but I think the fact that it was 20 cops makes little difference. At some point, an extra cop just doesn’t add anything to the effort except as a replacement for some guy who is tired. I know RK was a big guy, but I doubt that more than 5 or 6 cops could get a hand on him at any one time.

[Renob]

@you with the face

Sorry, but I fail to see how a man who is laying on the ground with arms raised and no weapons in sight constitutes a threat formidable enough that his head needs to be turned into a pinata before 20 semi-odd officers can restrain and arrest him.

One, the police didn’t hit him in the head when he was on the ground. They hit him on his arms and legs.

Two, King was attempting to rise while he was on the ground. The police hit him in order to keep him down.

Three, they thought he was on PCP.

Four, four cops had already attempted to tackle him and he threw them off.

Five, that was the procedure.

[Martin_Hyde]

My opinion is Rodney King should have gone to prison for assaulting a police officer and fleeing from police in the high speed chase. Just because the police possibly committed a crime against him after he had committed his crimes does not make him innocent.

I also believe that Powell and Koon (the two officers sentenced to 30 months in correctional camps) should not have been convicted of any crimes. I think they should have been dismissed as officers of the LAPD.

I’ve watched the video many times. I’ve read many accounts of the incident. I think that overall the police began it with attempts, genuine attempts, to use proper use of force to subdue a violent and aggressive criminal (one who had attempted to grab one of the officer’s sidearms) as they understood it. I think it’s evident they were not properly trained in the use of force. I think as the incident escalated, they lost discipline and began to do things they shouldn’t have done (for example kicking downwards at him instead of trying to physically hold him in place.) I think that’s normal for an average citizen. An incident, basically a fight, gets wilder as it goes on, you get more animistic and lose control. However I do hold the police to a higher standard than that, their jobs and their training is supposed to prepare them for chaotic situations and they are supposed to be the level headed ones in said situation. Since they did lose control and showed a great lack of discipline, especially in the videotaped segment (which was several minutes after the engagement began) I feel they had failed on several levels as police officers, and thus removing them from their positions was the proper response.

However, I think that since they were provoked, and exacerbated primarily by Rodney King they should not have been convicted of any crimes.

It’s a valid defense between two private citizens, if one provokes another in a fight that it is used as a mitigating factor if charges of assault are filed. It’s also not entirely uncommon, at least from my anecdotal experience with persons who sometimes become engaged in fights (typically the bar-parking lot style) that neither party is prosecuted of a crime against the other person but usually given a small misdemeanor charge such as disturbing the peace or etc and given a fine.

I think that the rights of the officers were violated by the Federal government. I think it is inherently unfair to try one person twice for what is basically the same crime. I view the civil rights charge as a slick legal loophole designed to avoid protection from double jeopardy. I think it is obvious that the prosecution in both cases was effectively trying the same crime, the second prosecution team was brought together in a designed effort by the government to make the position as difficult as possible for the officers. The prosecution in the Federal case had all the benefits the original prosecution had, they saw what witnesses worked and what witnesses didn’t, what evidence was compelling and what evidence wasn’t. They were able to structure their case around the aspects of the original case and use that to design a stronger case against the police officers. That’s precisely why we have protections against double jeopardy, because if you give the government enough attempts to prosecute, eventually they’ll probably get it right, even if a jury of your peers has acquitted you before.

My ideal outcome would have been:

-Rodney King goes to prison for the crimes he committed.
-Rodney King be compensated civilly because he was injured by police officers who performed badly at their jobs.
-The police officers be dismissed from the LAPD.

Only one of those things happened, King received $3.8m, and in a testament to his good judgement he is presently bankrupt and has committed multiple crimes since the incident in question.

As a side issue I think the riots should have been dealt with in a different manner. I think martial law should have been declared and any persons who were looting, rioting, shooting at police, committing assaults and et cetera on the streets should have been shot and killed on the spot. There should have been a general order given to all military and police personnel in the area to shoot any persons who were trying to continue rioting and civil unrest in the city. I also think the LAPD should have reacted with more force at the opening stages of the riot to maintain law and order.

I also think the curfews should have been more restrictive and more vigorously enforced, I think anyone caught outside after curfew should have been shipped to a holding camp erected outside the city and held there for one month, no questions asked.