Rodney King Beating

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=treis]
King took a swing at a cop at the beginning of the King video, which of course the media failed to show.
[/QUOTE]
(Emphasis mine.)

Not true.

I’ve seen broadcasts of the tape in its entirety, showing the swing by King.

You seem to imply that the media were involved in some sort of a deliberate cover up. But the reason the tape shown most often by broadcasters begins *after * this swing is because *before * (and during) the swing, the video image is very poor (out of focus and very jerky), as the camera was being hastily put into position to record the roadside scene.

42

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
Did the cops go to far is only partially the issue. If the police stop you for anything, whether you feel it is warranted or not- do what they say! How hard is that for people to understand? The police, regardless of how you feel, are in charge, can tell you what to do, and can take action if you don’t comply.
[/QUOTE]
Let me guess. You’re not a black male from the ghetto, right?

43

[QUOTE=Spiff]
Let me guess. You’re not a black male from the ghetto, right?
[/QUOTE]

Does that mean that you don’t think doing what a police officer asks you is good advice for a black man living in the ghetto?

44

While I can understand and agree with Wee Bairn in general on the idea of “Follow the officers’ instructions and you won’t be hurt,” I have to admit that it rests uneasily on my tongue; it sounds like another step down the road to a fascist police state.

45

[QUOTE=BMalion]
Except East L.A. and Reginald Denny :frowning:
[/QUOTE]

Of course, I meant to say South Central L.A. :smack: ( and I lived near there at the time.)

46

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
A federal jury said they committed a crime.

To me it looked like a bunch of white cops beating the hell out a black guy. I see no particular reason to bend over backwards trying to justify it. Their actions clearly went beyond what was necessary to subdue the suspect. They also made racist jokes about it afterwards and seemed to have really gotten their rocks off. I hope they enjoyed prison.
[/QUOTE]

A state jury said they did not. They were hit with Federal civil rights violations which, imho, was a politically motivated prosecution.

My question has always been though why couldn’t they have wrestled him to the ground? It would seem to have beem more effective than just hitting him.

King was a thug and an out and out criminal but the beating seemed over the top to me.

47

[QUOTE=rjung]
While I can understand and agree with Wee Bairn in general on the idea of “Follow the officers’ instructions and you won’t be hurt,” I have to admit that it rests uneasily on my tongue; it sounds like another step down the road to a fascist police state.
[/QUOTE]

Another step? That sounds exactly like a fascist police state.

48

Two observations: 1) Rodney King is a very large man. In a picture of him being escorted to court by two deputies or officers, he looms over them.
2) I just find it interesting that the media has always referred to Theodore Brisen~o as a white man rather than a hispanic man. I think they just prefer to say, “four white cops,” rather than, “three white cops and a hispanic cop.” I wonder if it would have been different if the victim had been hispanic.

In any case, I think it’s fair to say he was beaten more than necessary.

49

[QUOTE=Lochdale]
A state jury said they did not. They were hit with Federal civil rights violations which, imho, was a politically motivated prosecution.

My question has always been though why couldn’t they have wrestled him to the ground? It would seem to have beem more effective than just hitting him.

King was a thug and an out and out criminal but the beating seemed over the top to me.
[/QUOTE]

The book I read about this mentioned something about Rodney being high on PCP and was berserker strong at those moments. Supposedly, Rodney King withstood 2 1/2 blasts from the stun gun. Is this actually possible?

50

[QUOTE=pizzabrat]
Another step? That sounds exactly like a fascist police state.
[/QUOTE]

How so? Even if everything in America is working perfectly and democratically, if a copy comes to my door (through a case of mistaken identity) and arrests me, I have to go along. Because it’s a free country and not a police state, I will have access to habeas corpus, a lawyer, a speedy and fair jury trial, and so forth AFTER I have been arrested. But while being arrested, I don’t have a right to do anything other than sit there handcuffed in the back of the police car.
How else could it work?

51

[QUOTE=pizzabrat]
Another step? That sounds exactly like a fascist police state.
[/QUOTE]

I have to agree with Max. The police had probably cause out the wazoo in this instance, so were perfectly in the right to arrest Rk without a warrant. He would be required, by law, to submit to that arrest. Once arrested, he would have all the rights as anyone else in that circumstance.

BTW, a police state is not a state in which the police are simply given extra powers to arrest people for ordinary crimes, but when they are given powers (ordinary or otherwise) to arrest people for political crimes in order that the current government can maintain it’s grip on power. Had RK been arrested on his way to vote because it was suspected he belonged to the opposition party, that would be evidence of a police state.

52

How about having someone arrested because they criticized the Vice President in his face? :slight_smile:

</hijack>

53

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]

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.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, come now!

Do you think that the military (or police officers) involved would be willing to cary out such an order? Shoot looters on sight?

Who’s going to go home to the wife and kids and say, yep, today I shot ten people who were stealing TVs as they were lugging them out of the store; when’s supper ready?

Martial law and a death sentence enacted without warning for all crimes committed within the riot zone would have been a horrible solution to the problem, with horrible outcomes not just in terms of people killed by police, but in terms of political fall out and trust in our government and rule of law.

Who would want to serve in an armed forces that had to do such a thing? Who would trust an armed forces that would do such a thing? I can’t see how this would have been a good idea under the circumstances.

54

[QUOTE=Eonwe]
Oh, come now!

Do you think that the military (or police officers) involved would be willing to cary out such an order? Shoot looters on sight?

Who’s going to go home to the wife and kids and say, yep, today I shot ten people who were stealing TVs as they were lugging them out of the store; when’s supper ready?

Martial law and a death sentence enacted without warning for all crimes committed within the riot zone would have been a horrible solution to the problem, with horrible outcomes not just in terms of people killed by police, but in terms of political fall out and trust in our government and rule of law.

Who would want to serve in an armed forces that had to do such a thing? Who would trust an armed forces that would do such a thing? I can’t see how this would have been a good idea under the circumstances.
[/QUOTE]

I think it would be an excellent idea. I think one of the most important duties of a government is to maintain law and order, that is why governments were instituted among men in the first place, thousands of years ago. I think that in extreme crisis situations, where thousands of people and virtually an entire city have fallen in to chaos and are openly disregarding the rule of law, harsh measures are required.

In New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina I think if measures like I suggested had been taken from day one, some of the worst incidents would have been avoided. The disorderly will only become more so when their behavior is permitted. It starts with the looting of TVs, then it escalates into beatings, then goes to murders and rapes and eventually full out chaos and gang wars. The few dead looters at the beginning would serve as examples to those who were intending to wreck havoc on organized civilization.

When Napoleon was confronted with an angry, armed mob, he fired artillery into the mob and put down the riots and rebellious behavior. People respond to overwhelming force, in general, with compliance.

55

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
I think it would be an excellent idea. I think one of the most important duties of a government is to maintain law and order, that is why governments were instituted among men in the first place, thousands of years ago. I think that in extreme crisis situations, where thousands of people and virtually an entire city have fallen in to chaos and are openly disregarding the rule of law, harsh measures are required.

In New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina I think if measures like I suggested had been taken from day one, some of the worst incidents would have been avoided. The disorderly will only become more so when their behavior is permitted. It starts with the looting of TVs, then it escalates into beatings, then goes to murders and rapes and eventually full out chaos and gang wars. The few dead looters at the beginning would serve as examples to those who were intending to wreck havoc on organized civilization.

When Napoleon was confronted with an angry, armed mob, he fired artillery into the mob and put down the riots and rebellious behavior. People respond to overwhelming force, in general, with compliance.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I don’t know about your first point. I’d say that governments weren’t instituted to maintain law and order, but rather to provide security and (possibly) wealth and power.

Also, our government operates with a different degree of latitude than that of Napoleon or other governments that have historically used overwhelming force on its own citizenry. From what I recall, that is actually a point of pride for us here in the U.S.A.

If a situation is dire enough that the nation itself is truly at risk, then what you suggest might make sense. Killing people for what are basically minor crimes in order to send a message to the citizenry that their behavior is not tolerated is the antithesis of our justice system.

Basically, I don’t dispute that what you suggest could have the affect you imagine in some circumstances. I just think that if you are looking for a public that would tolerate such actions from its government, and an armed forces that would willingly cary out those actions, then you’re looking for a different country than this one.