Rodney King, wife beater.

[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.

*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 , 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?