Ugh. The purpose of the SDMB is to fight ignorance. I was not aware of those comments and they certainly put a different spin on motivations. Ignorance fought.
Use of excessive force is generally a civil claim, a defense (based on an improper arrest), or a sentencing factor. It’s not an independent crime. As far as I can tell, the charges on which the copes were tried were mostly assault and battery.
I didn’t moderate it because he only referred to some of your statements as stupid, which is not against the rules. But I’ve reported the post so the other GD mods can take a look. I understand what Scumpup is saying and he’s welcome to express that opinion strongly, but taking digs at other posters isn’t something you can do in this forum.
My main point is this. You have to know when to stop. Can you whack somebody a couple of times with a baton if necessary? Yes, and I’ve done that. And I know how to make it hurt.
But if you hit a guy with a baton a couple of times and he keeps on struggling, you have to re-assess the situation. You have to acknowledge that this particular individual is feeling no pain so hitting him is not going to work. And if it’s not going to work, you have to stop hitting him. There’s probably not a precise number of how many times you can justifiably whack a guy but it’s definitely below fifty-six.
That’s what they train us for: To know when to start using violence. And to know when to stop using violence.
Stop hitting him…and do what? 
OK officer, the first two baton hits aren’t working, and so you’ve stopped. An uncooperative, 6’3", 230-pound suspect will rise to his feet in a few seconds, and with those two baton hits you’ve basically done nothing more than piss him off.
With baton strikes off the menu, what’s your next move?
Fair enough. It takes a big man to admit to mistakes and you certainly shouldn’t feel bad about making assumptions that change when you receive new information.
Demand a nice shrubbery?
Since I’m the one being accused of insulting you I feel I should respond. I didn’t insult you or accuse you of being stupid.
I specifically directed my comments at your post, which I said was “dumb”, not at you, and I gave detailed reasons as to why the comment was stupid.
I also think most objective observers knowledgable about the relationship between the LAPD and LA’s African-American community and who were familiar with the case would agree that the post was stupid.
That does not mean that you are stupid and if you think my comment was unfair you should be able to rebut it.
Ok, this comment is also quite stupid considering Koon’s well-known statements about the beating so let me lay out why it’s both absurd and insulting and give you a chance to explain it.
You’re saying that Stacy Koon’s claim that Rodney King threatened a female police officer with “a mandingo sexual encounter”(his words not mine) couldn’t “legitimately be described as racist”.
I think that it pretty clearly demonstrates that Koon had issues with blacks and in particular that Koon had issues with black men being sexually interested in white women, particularly since Officer Singer did not feel such a threat and testified against Koon, Powell and the others.
So please, either retract that statement or explain why Koon’s use of the phrase “a Mandingo sexual encounter” doesn’t indicate a certain amount of racism?
Also, does anyone think for two seconds that Koon would have used that phrase if King had been White?
Hell, has anybody even heard that phrase used regarding whites?
I’ve worked both LE and residential treatment. It’s never as easy as the armchair cops in this thread make it seem. Drugs, crazy, concealed weapons, infectious body fluids, and anger are all mixed together unpedictably and you, as the luckless asshole responsible for controlling the situation, have to decide what to do RIGHT NOW. No matter what you decide, there’ll be legions of after-the-fact experts oozing sanctimony from every pore ready to tell you how you fucked up. TV and that fight they got into with Jimmy in 3rd grade make them better qualified than you, it seems.
You do realize that other officers, including officers who were present at the scene testified agains the racist LA cops who beat up Rodney King don’t you?
Wouldn’t you agree that CHP officer Melanie Singer is not an “armchair cop” who has no idea on the steps needed to subdue suspects?
If you think she isn’t, would you please give some detailed explanation as to why you’re better judge than an experienced CHP officer.
Thanks
Ha ha ha ha. Ha.
Ha. They should know better. But I’m long past the point of expecting them to know better.
How was the play Mrs. Lincoln?
Good. Coops who betray the public good deserve harsh treatment.
Out of all the participating parties, isn’t Rodney King the least responsible for the riots? Parties far more at fault:
The cops who abused their position
The prostitution who failed
The media
The actual rioters themselves
Yeah, RK deserved to go to prison for drunk driving & resisting arrest blah blah blah. Find me someone who disputes this. Cops who abuse the sacred power they’ve been given? Far more dangerous than a common thug.
This seems like a good point to me. Anyone have any ideas?
If it’s to try to wrestle him to the ground, that seems excessive in it’s risk. Sure, the cops would probably have not been hurt that day. However, that doesn’t make it a good policy. If an officer is forced to get in wrestling matches as part of normal procedure, the likely hood of injury would seem to go up.
Heh.
IIRC in one of the past self defense debates here on the Dope somebody actually DID try to use their 3rd (or so) grade school yard scuffle as serious and valid experience relevant to life or death adult fights.
…there are other people in this thread who have worked law enforcement and in prisons and have been on the front lines and have differing opinions. Are you saying they are wrong? Why are you right and they are wrong? They’ve got more experience than you do, surely by your standards that would make them right?
There are plenty of “armchair cops” on both sides" but ultimately everyone is just a voice on the internet. I wish people would stop playing this card: its as tired and as lame as the repeated “King was a bad man” mantra that has again been played again throughout the thread. How about you actually debate what people say, instead of the strawman version of what they have said?
Can you show me any police department in the western world where this is standard operating procedure for dealing with a non-compliant subject? Apparently 56 blows were to the body, I saw one stomp to the head and a couple of kicks. Was this policy when you were in LE? If you watched your fellow LE officers hit someone 56 times with a baton while they were lying on the ground, then watched as the stomped on his head then kicked him, would you report them? As a former LE officer, what was your threshold on head stomps? How many stomps to the head do you think should be delivered before you deem the line has been crossed?
…what does every other police department do? If you are really so confused you have to use the confused smiley, why don’t you pick up the phone and ask the police what they would do in that situation?
How many police departments do you think would answer your question…
“Gosh you are right!!! There is absolutely no other way to deal with the situation except to whack him fifty six times with a baton, kick him and stomp on his head! Thank you so much for pointing that out to us!”
After you’ve had your conversation with the local police department, please feel free to report your findings.
I’ve already made two suggestions. Use a shield or a kevlar blanket.
Or tear gas him. Or spray him with a fire hose. Or shoot him with a knock-out dart. I’ve done all of those at one point or another.
Of course my old stand-by would be talking to the guy. Nine times out of ten, I could talk them down.
In 1991, this is not an option. Moreover, even if the cops did have these, they’re stashed in the trunk of the squad car; by the time you go and get them, King has fled the scene. These are devices for riot control or for storming a prison cell, situations where you have time to prepare. They’re not suitable for use during a roadside traffic stop.
Tear gas is a standoff weapon suitable for crowd control, not for close-quarters action against a single subject. And even if this stuff was issued to them, it was probably in the trunks of their squadcars, not on their utility belts. Remember, King is a couple of seconds away from getting up and getting back into his car; you don’t have time to deploy anything that you’re not carrying on you at that moment.
OK, you fall back and put in a radio call for assistance from the fire department. They should arrive in about…shit, never mind, King has fled the scene.
I don’t think any US police force has ever provided tranquilizer darts to its officers; certainly the LAPD did not have them in 1991. If it did, I could see big problems with a suspect who gets shot by one and then puts himself in a situation where he will endanger himself or others when the drug finally takes effect. So you fall back and shoot King with one of these, and then back off and watch in dismay as he gets back in his car and flees at high speed. Now what?
Talking works with a subject who has paused to contemplate his options, not one who is already taking action. King has already made his decision to fight/flee; if you fall back and start trying to reason with him, he’s going to get up and get back in his car.
Machine Elf, your insistence (and not just yours) that what went on in that video is baffling. Surely we can all agree that there is a time and place when it is wholly appropriate for the police to use violence? And surely we can all agree that, “when the guy stops moving,” or, “when the guy calmly and clearly complies with instructions while being beaten and kicked” are inappropriate thresholds for ceasing violence?
Lemme repeat the question from my OP:
Given Rodney King’s substantial physical strength and his demonstrated intent to resist arrest, what, if anything, should the arresting officers have done differently that night?
Don’t just point to what they should not have done; that’s not enough. You need to provide viable alternatives.
I thought this was the point of SDMB: people with experience relevant to the subject at hand offer their input. In the present case, I was hoping we might hear from some actual current or former police officers.
…well, no the point of the SDMB is to fight ignorance. And that would best be served by you picking up the phone and calling your local police department. It would take you five minutes. Then you wouldn’t be all confused when people suggest to do what every police force in the Western world would do and stop hitting him. Or do you really think that this is the way police forces around the world handle this type of situation?
But do you actually want to know the answer to your question? I don’t actually think you do.
Was the King situation a one-in-a-trillion event that had never happened before where the only option was to hit him 56 times with batons and stomp him in the head? Do you really think that there was no other option, and that the way the police handled it here was the best way to handle it?