Rodney King verdict
martin frederic melhus
>
> Well they all decided that the police did not use unnecessary force to
>subdue Rodney King. I don't know all of what went on, because the stuff that
>was put on the television was only the end of the tape. It is my understanding
>that the rest of the tape is of a guy's family. He only caught the very end.
>Unfortunately no one is sure of what actually happen prior to that.
> I do not think that it was a racist thing. The jury looked at all of
>the facts and testimony and decided that according to the law they {police
>officers} were correct and did not use force above that which was called for.
>(stuff deleted - MFM).
It seems that what Mr. Lamanna is trying to say is that based on the
videotape evidence alone, it is easy to jump to unwarranted conclusions.
It is clear that Mr. King was not just pulled over at random, but had
created a great threat to public safety by speeding through L.A. To
conclude that the officers were guilty and should have been convicted
based solely on the evidence of the videotape is to make a decision based
on only a small amount of the evidence, and is unfair to the police officers
involved.
In this, I must agree with him. As tragic as the beating was, I am
unable to categorically conclude that the officers were unjustified
in using force to subdue Rodney King. It is also worth noting that
the charge of using unnecessary force resulted in a hung jury, and
there will be a retrial on that charge. Furthermore the federal
government is investigating their options for prosecution. For the
officers involved, they have only one the first of a number of
battles.
> It is sad to see so many americans doing so much damage to so many
>other people all because this "scum" Rodney King was beaten when he failed to
>obey a command issued by a police officer and then makes and attack on a police
>officer. I use the word scum to mean someone that had an intent to do wrong.
>I do not believe that doing 115 down a city street is just an accident, and
>that the charge at the officers was just him coming over to surrender, when
>they all yelled don't move, get down on the ground face down and put your hands
>where they can be seen.
Whether Rodney King is "scum" or not is immaterial. The restrictions on
the behavior of officers of the law apply to their inteactions with all
persons. To imply that it is OK to use excessive force on some people
is to imply that it is OK to use it on all people. The issue here is not
what Mr. King did, or what his value to society is, but how he was treated
by the police with regard to his actions during his arrest. Suppose during
the arrest of Jeff Daumer, the officers on the scene had observed all
of the gruesome evidence, and decided to beat Daumer up, despite his
non-resistance and complete obidence to the officer's directives. And
further suppose that this beating had been videotaped, and released to the
press. Daumer would have been able to plead excessive force.
It is possible that much of the evidence found in his apartment would have
been ruled improperly seized; it certainly would have complicated the
state's prosecution of his case, and their efforts to remove Daumer from
exposure to the general public. While I am no expert
on legal matters, it is clear that restrictions placed on the use of force
by officers of the law are necessary. (It is also clear that Daumer would
not have received much sympathy for being beaten. Perhaps he deserved it.
But our system of jurisprudence cannot condone it, or the system is flawed.)
> Michael Lamanna
> University At Buffalo
> Civil Engineering
>
> "It is easier to get forgiven than permission."
Martin F. Melhus - - - - - - - - mf...@midway.uchicago.edu |
Chancellor of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Lord of Odious | Never
Poetry, and Master of Trilobite Affairs (CoWoMDLoOPMoTA). | Generalize!!
--
| You have all the time from when you remove the |
Martin F. Melhus | card(s) from your hand until you put it (them) |
mf...@midway.uchicago.edu | on the pile to say "Last Card". If you don't, |
| take your two. - Hidden texts, Book of MauMau. |
Richard S. Guse
>
> Well they all decided that the police did not use unnecessary force to
> subdue Rodney King. I don't know all of what went on, because the stuff that
> was put on the television was only the end of the tape. It is my understanding
> you.
> The only view that I can make from that of Rodney King is that it was
> and attack. I can see no other valid reason to disobey a police officer and
> make an attempt to assault him.
I've been waiting for someone to formulate something to this sort...it's
been mulling around for a while.
I haven't heard the news today, but I'm sure it's not too much better down
in california than yesterday. we're not dealing with rational people, but
society in it's worst form. Sure, to us the reasoning the jury used to come
to their decision seems sound, at least to me and the above poster, it seems
sound. But the thing is, that we don't know, and will never know exactly.
well, I don't like to use never, so it might not be appropriate, but oh well.
The peoples doing the rioting in LA don't care about rationalle. it's
turned into something far worse...a matter of socio-political-viewpoints.
*ick*
well, enough blabbering...and nonsense...laterz!
--
. . . . ______-==-______. ______-==-______ .
. . . . __-------=----------------==----------------=-------___
________________ _ _- -------=________________==________________=------- .
(______________(_||_)/_______/ . . ---- ---- . .
/_____/_____ _- . . . .
. . \________ - . "Ensign, set a course to the main() routine,
Capt. Mycroft Holmes III . recursive warp factor 6." . .
CO, USS Beelzebub . . .Isaac Asimov (1920-1992)
. Recursive Class Starship . NCC+=666++ . You will be missed... . .
____________________My Millenium Falcon is in the shop________________________
Richard S. Guse
> In article <1992May1.1...@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v125...@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Michael F. Lamanna) writes:
> turned into something far worse...a matter of socio-political-viewpoints.
PROPERTY OF J.H.
>In article <1992May1.1...@acsu.buffalo.edu> v125...@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Michael F. Lamanna) writes:
>>
>> Well they all decided that the police did not use unnecessary force to
>>subdue Rodney King. I don't know all of what went on, because the stuff that
>>was put on the television was only the end of the tape. It is my understanding
>>that the rest of the tape is of a guy's family. He only caught the very end.
>>Unfortunately no one is sure of what actually happen prior to that.
>> I do not think that it was a racist thing. The jury looked at all of
>>the facts and testimony and decided that according to the law they {police
>>officers} were correct and did not use force above that which was called for.
>>(stuff deleted - MFM).
>
>It seems that what Mr. Lamanna is trying to say is that based on the
>videotape evidence alone, it is easy to jump to unwarranted conclusions.
>It is clear that Mr. King was not just pulled over at random, but had
>created a great threat to public safety by speeding through L.A. To
>conclude that the officers were guilty and should have been convicted
>based solely on the evidence of the videotape is to make a decision based
>on only a small amount of the evidence, and is unfair to the police officers
>involved.
Did you watch the video tape. I think not. do you know what the
police were trying to do in the video tape. I think not. They were trying to
handcuff the man. Did it look like King was being very cooperative. No he
wasn't. When you are put under arrest the law states that you must be put in
handcuffs before being placed in the police car. They did not do anything out
of the ordinary while trying to handcuff this man. This man is a threat and
since he was not cooperating the use of force is warranted.
Did Rodney King ever stop moving for them to put the cuffs on him???
No he didn't. The police did nothing wrong. They were doing their job. They
should have used the force necessary to get the cuffs on him and the video
alone shows that they followed the law to the letter in that case.
>
>In this, I must agree with him. As tragic as the beating was, I am
>unable to categorically conclude that the officers were unjustified
>in using force to subdue Rodney King. It is also worth noting that
>the charge of using unnecessary force resulted in a hung jury, and
>there will be a retrial on that charge. Furthermore the federal
>government is investigating their options for prosecution. For the
>officers involved, they have only one the first of a number of
>battles.
>
>> It is sad to see so many americans doing so much damage to so many
>>other people all because this "scum" Rodney King was beaten when he failed to
>>obey a command issued by a police officer and then makes and attack on a police
>>officer. I use the word scum to mean someone that had an intent to do wrong.
>>I do not believe that doing 115 down a city street is just an accident, and
>>that the charge at the officers was just him coming over to surrender, when
>>they all yelled don't move, get down on the ground face down and put your hands
>>where they can be seen.
>
>Whether Rodney King is "scum" or not is immaterial. The restrictions on
>the behavior of officers of the law apply to their inteactions with all
>persons. To imply that it is OK to use excessive force on some people
>is to imply that it is OK to use it on all people. The issue here is not
You missed the point. This man was at the time a danger to lives of
the police officers. He was not someone to be dealt with lightly. Force is
necessary for all people that portrayed the attitude that Mr. King displayed.
I did not say that because he was scum that they should have beat him. I said
that I though that Mr. King is scum. The situation mandated the violence.
>what Mr. King did, or what his value to society is, but how he was treated
>by the police with regard to his actions during his arrest. Suppose during
>the arrest of Jeff Daumer, the officers on the scene had observed all
>of the gruesome evidence, and decided to beat Daumer up, despite his
>non-resistance and complete obedience to the officer's directives. And
Well according to the law then the police would be found guilty. The
fact in the King case is that the man was not cooperative and was hostile. He
made and attack at the police. The police used the force necessary to prevent
another attack safe guard their lives and bring the man into custody.
>further suppose that this beating had been videotaped, and released to the
>press. Daumer would have been able to plead excessive force.
>It is possible that much of the evidence found in his apartment would have
>been ruled improperly seized; it certainly would have complicated the
>state's prosecution of his case, and their efforts to remove Daumer from
>exposure to the general public. While I am no expert
>on legal matters, it is clear that restrictions placed on the use of force
>by officers of the law are necessary. (It is also clear that Daumer would
>not have received much sympathy for being beaten. Perhaps he deserved it.
>But our system of jurisprudence cannot condone it, or the system is flawed.)
>
King is not Daumer. King was treated with the force that was
necessary to bring him into custody. If Daumer did the same I think that the
same thing would have happened to him.
Herman Schmit
|>
A few small (and some MIGHT consider irrelevant) corrections/opinions.
|> Police are often confronted with dangerous situations. Think about
|>this. You are a cop and you are chasing a man driving a car 115 miles per
|>hour. That's right one hundred and fifteen miles per hour.
Actually, the police report said 115 MPH. But the car that King was
driving was a Hyundai Excel. Now I don't know if you've ever driven a
Hyundai, but with three people in the car, it can't break 90. You'll
say that's pedantic, but it was really only one of a litany of
exaggerations and untruths in the police report that was published
before they knew the event had been videotaped. If the officer's felt
justified for their actions at the time, why did they feel the need to
stretch the truth?
|> What happens next??? The police men subdue Rodney King with out
|>excessive force. But wait there's more. He tries to get up. New thoughts.
|>Is he going to come at me again??? Am I safe now??? Maybe not. What to do.
Did you see the same tape? I sympathize with cops too, and I can
understand their anxiety, but I also saw King lying prone and
motionless, and he didn't move again until he was struck in the legs
and the back. After the verdict I tried to see the jury's side, but
then I saw the videotape again.
Keep in mind, this use of force WAS beyond the regulations of the
LAPD. Police departments nationwide are using this tape to show how
NOT to subdue an uncooperative. Are you still convinced that the
actions of the police were completely in the line of duty?
|>Rodney King was not just some one that they pulled over for a broken tail
|>light. This man was obviously trying to get away for a reason. He also made
|>an attack, that was not caught on video tape.
Based upon the other exaggerations, how do we know he made an attack?
From the police?
I don't think any of us (generally) white suburban kids know what it
is like to be a black man in the city. I've been luck enough to know
that when I stop for a police officer, he was going to most likely treat
me fairly. That assumption doesn't hold for black men.
What was King eventually arrested for? Did they get him on anything
unrelated to that evening's events?
|> If you honestly believe that you would let someone make an attack at
|>you and not defend yourself. Then I would call you a liar. Man has a survival
|>instinct. This is not something you could willfully alow some one to do to
|>you.
This is exactly the explanation I've used when people say Rodney King
was beaten because he would not stop moving and follow the police
officer's commands. Neither you or I would lie still as we were beaten.
herman
Iain McCord
: driving was a Hyundai Excel. Now I don't know if you've ever driven a
: Hyundai, but with three people in the car, it can't break 90. You'll
It'd been fitted with Nitrous Oxide. Just because the standard model
can't reach that speed, doesn't mean the one involved couldn't.
: herman
--
~~~~~/\~~~~~
Iain McCord ~~~~/()\~~~~ Mon May 4 15:18:29 WET DST 1992
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark C. Carroll
This is nonsense.
Watch the tape. THEY DIDN'T TRY TO HANDCUFF HIM!!!!
The police chief of Philadelphia, who is taking over the LA force,
is quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer on his view of the incident. A
paraphrase of him statement is:
There is no possible excuse for what the officers did to Rodney King.
No attempt was made to restrain him. No attempt was made to handcuff
him. He was simply beaten. Four police officers should be able to
restrain any man - ANY MAN - long enough to handcuff him _without_
beating him. The officers made no attempt to restrain him and handcuff
before they started beating him. After they started beating him - they
never tried to restrain him. They shot him with a stun gun - and
continued beating him after he was stunned. They broke his legs - and
continued beating him after he had been stunned and his legs were
broken. That kind of force is NEVER justified under ANY circumstances.
The day after the beating, one of the officers went to the hospital
where King was being treated - and taunted him: "We really rocked and
rolled with you last night, eh?". That kind of behavior can NEVER be
justified by a police officer, no matter what the circumstances.
> Did Rodney King ever stop moving for them to put the cuffs on him???
>No he didn't. The police did nothing wrong. They were doing their job. They
>should have used the force necessary to get the cuffs on him and the video
>alone shows that they followed the law to the letter in that case.
Once they started beating him - they didn't try to handcuff him. And
if you watch the tape - Kings behavior is entirely consistent with a
man trying to protect himself from being beaten. Before the beating
started - you can claim that he was resisting arrest, and was in the
wrong by fighting against his arrest. But with four guys - three grab
him and hold him, and one puts the cuffs on - there's no reason to
start a beating. And once they start beating him - you can't expect a
person to stand still and let people beat the shit out of him.
Be honest - four cops start beating the shit out of you. Are you going
to lay down and let them keep trying? Or are you going to do whatever
you can to protect yourself?
And then - they cops shoot him with a stun gun. A stun gun basically
hits with an enourmous electrical current to shock your nervous system
and stun you. Once you've been hit by one, you're body is completely
out of your control for around ten seconds, and it takes several
minutes before you regain full control and coordination. So after they
shot him with that - he was thrashing for a while, but not in deliberate
control - and after the thrashing, he wouldn't have the coordination to
fight for several minutes. But the cops kept beating him. If they were
acting within reason, just trying to restrain him - why didn't they
handcuff him when he had been stunned?
>>In this, I must agree with him. As tragic as the beating was, I am
>>unable to categorically conclude that the officers were unjustified
>>in using force to subdue Rodney King. It is also worth noting that
>>the charge of using unnecessary force resulted in a hung jury, and
>>there will be a retrial on that charge. Furthermore the federal
>>government is investigating their options for prosecution. For the
>>officers involved, they have only one the first of a number of
>>battles.
>>
>>> It is sad to see so many americans doing so much damage to so many
>>>other people all because this "scum" Rodney King was beaten when he failed
>>>to obey a command issued by a police officer and then makes and attack on
>>>a police officer. I use the word scum to mean someone that had an intent
>>>to do wrong.
The fact that King is an asshole or a criminal is immaterial. The fact
that he resisted arrest is also immaterial. The fact that the cops
thought he was on drugs is immaterial. The question that matters is:
are police _ever_ justified in using that kind of force? And the
answer is NO. Police are justified in using whatever force is necessary
to restrain a criminal. But when four police officers claim that it
was necessary to continue beating a man after he had been stunned and had
his legs broken in order to restrain him - something is wrong.
>>>I do not believe that doing 115 down a city street is just an accident, and
>>>that the charge at the officers was just him coming over to surrender, when
>>>they all yelled don't move, get down on the ground face down and put your hands
>>>where they can be seen.
>>
>>Whether Rodney King is "scum" or not is immaterial. The restrictions on
>>the behavior of officers of the law apply to their inteactions with all
>>persons. To imply that it is OK to use excessive force on some people
>>is to imply that it is OK to use it on all people. The issue here is not
>
> You missed the point. This man was at the time a danger to lives of
>the police officers. He was not someone to be dealt with lightly. Force is
>necessary for all people that portrayed the attitude that Mr. King displayed.
>I did not say that because he was scum that they should have beat him. I said
>that I though that Mr. King is scum. The situation mandated the violence.
>
Four police officers - trained in unarmed combat, carrying
nightsticks, one armed with a stungun - against one unarmed drunk man.
The police were in danger of their lives? Tell me - just what kind of
superhuman monster do you think Rodney King was?
<MC>
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC> || "Humanity isn't a physical description,
|| Univ of Delaware, Dept of CIS|| it's a spiritual goal. It's not something
|| Grad Student/Labstaff Hacker || you're given, it's something you earn."
|| car...@udel.edu || - _One_, by Richard Bach
--
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC> || "There is no such thing as a problem
|| Univ of Delaware, Dept of CIS|| without a gift for you in its hands. You
|| Grad Student/Labstaff Hacker || seek problems because you need thier
|| car...@udel.edu || gifts" - _Illusions_, by Richard Bach
martin frederic melhus
>>videotape evidence alone, it is easy to jump to unwarranted conclusions.
>>It is clear that Mr. King was not just pulled over at random, but had
>>created a great threat to public safety by speeding through L.A. To
>>conclude that the officers were guilty and should have been convicted
>>based solely on the evidence of the videotape is to make a decision based
>>on only a small amount of the evidence, and is unfair to the police officers
>>involved.
>
> Did you watch the video tape. I think not. do you know what the
>police were trying to do in the video tape. I think not. They were trying to
>handcuff the man. Did it look like King was being very cooperative. No he
>wasn't. When you are put under arrest the law states that you must be put in
>handcuffs before being placed in the police car. They did not do anything out
>of the ordinary while trying to handcuff this man. This man is a threat and
>since he was not cooperating the use of force is warranted.
> Did Rodney King ever stop moving for them to put the cuffs on him???
>No he didn't. The police did nothing wrong. They were doing their job. They
>should have used the force necessary to get the cuffs on him and the video
>alone shows that they followed the law to the letter in that case.
It seems clear that Mr. Lamanna has fallen into the same error that the
people who are demanding the police officers in question be "brought to
justice." He asks "do you know what the
police were trying to do in the video tape.... They were trying to
handcuff the man." That seems clear. But the question is did they do
anything out of the ordinary? Mr. Lamanna seems to be certain that they
did not, just as many other people seem to be certain that they did.
While many individuals have strong opinions in either direction based
on less than a minute of videotape, the jurors who listened to the case for
days pretty much cleared the police officers. It seems to me that if
someone else has a better look at the evidence than I do, their decisions
and inferences about said evidence is probably better. It is as dangerous
to categorically assume that the police officers in this case were
acting within the proscribed limits as it is to assume they were not, if
said assumptions are based solely on a short videotape.
> You missed the point. This man was at the time a danger to lives of
>the police officers. He was not someone to be dealt with lightly. Force is
>necessary for all people that portrayed the attitude that Mr. King displayed.
>I did not say that because he was scum that they should have beat him. I said
>that I though that Mr. King is scum. The situation mandated the violence.
No, I did not miss the point. I made it quite clear in my last post that
Mr. King was endangering other peoples' lives by driving dangerously,
and that arresting him was necessary. The question that this case boils
down to is did the police use much more force than was necessary. There
are many people who saw the videotape that observed a badly beaten man
trying to avoid further blows, while the police swung their nightsticks
with glee. I do not agree with this interpretation at all, but several
million Americans do. I am not presumptuous enough to claim that they
are all clearly wrong; after all, the medical reports do document some
serious trauma.
While it is true that you did not say that Mr. King was scum and
therefore should have been beaten, you did, in a roundabout way
attempt to excuse the "possibly excessive" beating because he was
scum. Perhaps a calling him a danger to society, or a threat to the
public welfare would have been more appropriate. After all, if being
scum made police brutality OK, I'd send a bunch of burly cops to the
white house: the senate and congress should keep them busy for a long time,
never mind the executive branch.
> King was treated with the force that was
> necessary to bring him into custody.
Well, I guess I'm glad that one of us can be this certain, based
on a short video of middling picture quality.
Phil
} her...@amc.ece.cmu.edu (Herman Schmit) writes:
} : driving was a Hyundai Excel. Now I don't know if you've ever driven a
} : Hyundai, but with three people in the car, it can't break 90. You'll
} Was it a standard car, or was it one with a special engine. Perhaps
} It'd been fitted with Nitrous Oxide. Just because the standard model
} can't reach that speed, doesn't mean the one involved couldn't.
Now, get a little more on the side of serious. NO2 is one of the worst things
you can do to an engine - it burns hotter than hell. It can only be used in
short bursts (typically 15 seconds, though funny-cars use it for up to 30)
before the engine locks up. And you have to drive a considerable distance
before your engine has cooled down enough to use it again. Giving a Hyundai
the benefit of the doubt (that is, 15 seconds on, a minute off), there is
really no way that King could have attained a speed of 115 mph.
I don't know for a fact that King's car wasn't fitted with a NO2 injector.
However, I also don't know if it was. Now, is there truth to Herman's
statement, or is he just posing a possible explanation as fact?
Phil Miesle, Ambassador to the Intergalatic Planning Commission
PROPERTY OF SOMEONE WONDERFUL
>Actually, the police report said 115 MPH. But the car that King was
>driving was a Hyundai Excel. Now I don't know if you've ever driven a
>Hyundai, but with three people in the car, it can't break 90. You'll
>say that's pedantic, but it was really only one of a litany of
>exaggerations and untruths in the police report that was published
>before they knew the event had been videotaped. If the officer's felt
>justified for their actions at the time, why did they feel the need to
>stretch the truth?
I own an 83 chevette. My speedometer doesn't go above 85, but the car
does. I have personally done over 90 with the car and I had 2 passengers in
it. I was going up route 81 in NY just outside of Kirkwood. It is flat and
strait. The cop clocked me at 93, I was going faster, but I let off the
accelerator when the radar detector went off because he clocked to guy in front
of me who I was just about to fly by. Don't let a small car fool you. They do
move. So don't try to sell me on the idea that the car doesn't go that fast.
I will if you put your foot down and keep it there. It may not accelerate that
fast but a car will achieve that speed.
>Keep in mind, this use of force WAS beyond the regulations of the
>LAPD. Police departments nationwide are using this tape to show how
>NOT to subdue an uncooperative. Are you still convinced that the
>actions of the police were completely in the line of duty?
Where did you get that. Or did you think it sounds nice so you put it
in. I don't think that this is happening. How is it that you know what police
procedure is. Are you a cop??? Or are you going by what the media tells you?
You would take the word of the media over that of a law enforcement officer?
>
>|>Rodney King was not just some one that they pulled over for a broken tail
>|>light. This man was obviously trying to get away for a reason. He also made
>|>an attack, that was not caught on video tape.
>
>Based upon the other exaggerations, how do we know he made an attack?
>From the police?
I am not sure of this, but that I think came from the other men that
were in the car. The ones that went along peacefully.
>
>I don't think any of us (generally) white suburban kids know what it
>is like to be a black man in the city. I've been luck enough to know
>that when I stop for a police officer, he was going to most likely treat
>me fairly. That assumption doesn't hold for black men.
Especially black men that lead police on high speed chases through
streets of LA. Ones that go on long enough for three patrol cars to join in.
This was not a short trip that King was making. I am surprised that they
didn't shoot him. If it were a white person the same thing would probably have
happened.
Salamander~
>In article <1992May3.1...@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>, her...@amc.ece.cmu.edu (Herman Schmit) writes...
>>driving was a Hyundai Excel. Now I don't know if you've ever driven a
>>Hyundai, but with three people in the car, it can't break 90. You'll
> I own an 83 chevette. My speedometer doesn't go above 85, but the car
>does. I have personally done over 90 with the car and I had 2 passengers in
Hyundais do not appear to have the superior "Made is 'Merica"
sound-barrier breaking qualities that Chevettes seem to possess. If
King was driving a Chevette (or if you have driven a Hyundai), you may
be able to make a comparison.
>You would take the word of the media over that of a law enforcement officer?
In a hot second. (Of course, I'd take the word of _most_
people over that of a pi...law enforcement officer...)
[....]
> Especially black men that lead police on high speed chases through
>streets of LA. Ones that go on long enough for three patrol cars to join in.
>This was not a short trip that King was making. I am surprised that they
>didn't shoot him If it were a white person the same thing would probably have
>happened.
Look, how many cops were there? Twelve or so? If you're
trying to tell me that _twelve_ able-bodied policemen couldn't subdue
_one_ drunk man, without beating the stuffing out of him, I'd have to
conclude that you were lying to me. I conclude the same about the
LAPD. Have _you_ watched the tape? :)
--
maj...@acsu.buffalo.edu | The meek shall inherit the earth,
v061...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu | and the wise keep moving on...
Rev. M @P.O. Box 156 O |-----------------------------------------
Amherst, NY 14226 + |Ask me about the Secret Society! Shhhh!
Scott Drellishak
>Are you a cop??? Or are you going by what the media tells you? You
>would take the word of the media over that of a law enforcement
>officer?
Yes. Especially when the cop is desperately trying to cover his ass.
>This was not a short trip that King was making. I am surprised that
>they didn't shoot him. If it were a white person the same thing would
>probably have happened.
You are one of the people who actually puts a value in that little box
at the bottom of the income tax form which says "Voluntary
Contributions". I can tell. You have that "I've just had a broom
handle stuck up my ass -- I think I'll stick a baseball bat up there
too!" mentality, and it shows. You really, honestly, you're not
shitting us think that people should be shot on the spot for traffic
violations?
Scott
--
/--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Scott Drellishak sfd@{cory,miro}.berkeley.edu "--\ /\ --\" |
| "If you don' god the GUTS to as' you boss for a |-< | | |-< |
| day off, you DESERVE to be poo'!" - Tom "Tiger" Vu --/ \/ --/ |
\--------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Get Screwed
>
> ~~~~~/\~~~~~
>Iain McCord ~~~~/()\~~~~ Mon May 4 15:18:29 WET DST 1992
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hey Ian or is it Iain .. glad to see you can spell your name right
Stuart_Hall
aka Corwin
#include BITNET <FS...@ALASKA.BITNET>
#include EMAIL <FS...@ACAD3.ALASKA.EDU>
Steven E Brockman
> Look, how many cops were there? Twelve or so? If you're
> trying to tell me that _twelve_ able-bodied policemen couldn't subdue
> _one_ drunk man, without beating the stuffing out of him, I'd have to
> conclude that you were lying to me. I conclude the same about the
> LAPD. Have _you_ watched the tape? :)
>
>
>
> --
> maj...@acsu.buffalo.edu | The meek shall inherit the earth,
> v061...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu | and the wise keep moving on...
> Rev. M @P.O. Box 156 O |-----------------------------------------
> Amherst, NY 14226 + |Ask me about the Secret Society! Shhhh!
All of the officers present were not LAPD. Two were CHP, four were LAPD
and the rest were some type of security for an university or apartment
complex or some such. None of them were had enough training or were even
supposed to engage a potentially dangerous criminal, such as Rodney King,
in an attempt to subdue him. Actually, the most dangerous thing that
could have been done was to have a bunch of people pile on top of King to
subdue him, it would have been too easy for him to grab a gun. Also, if
the LAPD had not been there, King would probably be dead. One of the
highway patrol officers who had originally called for backup in pursuing
King had begun to approach him with her gun drawn when one of the LAPD
officers called her off.
In article <1992May4.1...@udel.edu> car...@mercury.cis.udel.edu
(Mark C. Carroll) writes:
> This is nonsense.
>
> Watch the tape. THEY DIDN'T TRY TO HANDCUFF HIM!!!!
If you watch the tape, you will see one of the officers begin to get his
handcuffs out. You will then see King, once again, attempt to rise.
> But with four guys - three grab
> him and hold him, and one puts the cuffs on - there's no reason to
> start a beating.
As I alluded to before, LAPD procedure tells officers not to have several
officers try and grab ahold of someone in an attempt to subdue him. It is
too easy for him to grab one of their guns.
> And then - they cops shoot him with a stun gun. A stun gun basically
> hits with an enourmous electrical current to shock your nervous system
> and stun you. Once you've been hit by one, you're body is completely
> out of your control for around ten seconds, and it takes several
> minutes before you regain full control and coordination. So after they
> shot him with that - he was thrashing for a while, but not in deliberate
> control - and after the thrashing, he wouldn't have the coordination to
> fight for several minutes.
Aren't you the one who said "Watch the tape" ? At the very beginning you
see King's reaction to just being show with a stun gun: he gets up and
charges one of the officers.
Too many people seem to forget that there is more to this case than just a
video tape, and many people choose to ignore much of what is one the tape
also.
Sincerely,
The Neo-fascist Doctor of Anarchy
"A little rebellion now and then is a good thing."
-Thomas Jefferson
"Sisyphus must be regarded as happy."
-Albert Camus
Michael F. Lamanna
HEY ASSHOLE WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE
If you think that at the time King was pulled over that he was no
threat to society or the police officers, then you are the one with the
problem.
I do not think that people should be shoot for traffic violations.
Let's keep this all within the realm of reality. His car was doing 115
according to the fact that the police report was filed and said so and the jury
said that they did not file a false report. So let's not dispute about that.
The police had a reason to believe that this man was dangerous, or is
it common practice to do 115? I don't live on the west coast, but I did hear
that people out there drive fast. Maybe he was doing nothing out of the
ordinary.
He did make a charge at the police officers. They had to use force on
him to subdue him. I do not think that it was excessive (and neither did a
jury of his piers). Like I posted earlier. Police risk their lives to protect
us. I think that they should be allowed to do what ever they see fit to
protect them selves.
Did you ever stop to think about why they didn't beat on the other guys
in the car. If they were so racist that they just wanted to beat on a black
man, then why didn't they beat the others in the car???
Answer. The others did not make a charge at them and did not resist
arrest. King did. It is not a racist thing.
Scott Drellishak
In article <SFD.92Ma...@bezier.bezier.berkeley.edu>, s...@bezier.berkeley.edu (Scott Drellishak) writes...
>In article <1992May5.2...@acsu.buffalo.edu> v125...@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (PROPERTY OF SOMEONE WONDERFUL) writes:
>>Are you a cop??? Or are you going by what the media tells you? You
>>would take the word of the media over that of a law enforcement
>>officer?
>
>Yes. Especially when the cop is desperately trying to cover his ass.
>
>>This was not a short trip that King was making. I am surprised that
>>they didn't shoot him. If it were a white person the same thing would
>>probably have happened.
>
>You are one of the people who actually puts a value in that little box
>at the bottom of the income tax form which says "Voluntary
>Contributions". I can tell. You have that "I've just had a broom
>handle stuck up my ass -- I think I'll stick a baseball bat up there
>too!" mentality, and it shows. You really, honestly, you're not
>shitting us think that people should be shot on the spot for traffic
>violations?
>
>Scott
HEY ASSHOLE WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE
If you think that at the time King was pulled over that he was no
threat to society or the police officers, then you are the one with the
problem.
I never said this.
I do not think that people should be shoot for traffic
violations. Let's keep this all within the realm of reality. His
car was doing 115 according to the fact that the police report was
filed and said so and the jury said that they did not file a false
report. So let's not dispute about that.
*You're* the one who said, above, that you were "surprised that they
didn't shoot him." Do you think that would be proper police behavior?
If not, why not? Perhaps because the police, just like everybody else,
have limits on the actions, called "the law"? In any case, I can dispute
any fact I choose to dispute. I don't think a Hyundae (sp) can go 115
miles per hour. The jury, as all juries in widely-reported cases, had
to be made up of the kind of ignoramuses who (a) never heard of the
case, and (b) could disregard the evidence of their senses in favor of
the color of the cops' uniforms.
The police had a reason to believe that this man was
dangerous, or is it common practice to do 115? I don't live on the
west coast, but I did hear that people out there drive fast. Maybe
he was doing nothing out of the ordinary.
I don't claim that Rodney King was anything other than a criminal. However,
how serious of a criminal do you think he was? I and my friends used to
commute to high school, and I can remember several occasions when we were
going 90-95 mph, weaving in and out of traffic, in LA. Should I have been
beaten to a pulp? Or, perhaps you wouldn't have been surprised if they'd
just shot me?
He did make a charge at the police officers. They had to
use force on him to subdue him. I do not think that it was
excessive (and neither did a jury of his piers). Like I posted
earlier. Police risk their lives to protect us. I think that they
should be allowed to do what ever they see fit to protect them
selves.
They had to use force. *How much* force is the question. If you can
believe that there was no opportunity to cuff him, I have some prime
swampland it Florida for sale. Police risk their lives to protect us,
but they have to obey the law like everybody else. Suppose that, in
order to "protect themselves", they lived up to your expectations, and
started shooting people for traffic violations. Do you think that they'd
have crossed a line, or is that OK with you?
Did you ever stop to think about why they didn't beat on
the other guys in the car. If they were so racist that they just
wanted to beat on a black man, then why didn't they beat the others
in the car???
Answer. The others did not make a charge at them and did not resist
arrest. King did. It is not a racist thing.
The claim is not that the cops wanted to beat him because he was black.
The claim is that the beating he received was much harsher because he
was black. "We didn't beat every black person in a 100 meter radius"
is not a defense -- the beating Rodney King received was far, far more
than was necessary to subdue and cuff him.
John R. Mayo
alleged criminals better than the four that pounded Rodney King. I
read in Newsweek that the first thing the cops were supposed to do was
cause pain, and then, if that didn't work, they were supposed to break
certain bones. [Newsweek, May 11, 1992, page 37] Now, I have seen the
tape, and it certainly appears that the officers simply attempted to
beat the living sh*t out of King. The officers were on trial to
determine whether or not they used "excessive force" in subduing
Rodney King. To me, no matter what drugs King was on (and no PCP was
found in his bloodstream [same source as above], no matter how drunk
he was (and he WAS LEGALLY drunk (emphasis because legally drunk is
not necessarily "drunk" in the normal sense of the word)), no matter
how hostile he was, what those officers did was EXCESSIVE. That is why
I think the verdict was wrong. Had Rodney King had a gun, and had he
shot one of the officers, I would be more inclined to understand thier
actions. However, that would still not make it right.
--
John Mayo -------> may...@cs.rose-hulman.edu
"It's 10 o'clock, do you know what time it is?"
Craig P Steffen
> Had Rodney King had a gun, and had he
> shot one of the officers, I would be more inclined to understand thier
> actions. However, that would still not make it right.
That is a completely different situation. That would be threat of death.
If someone is firing a deadly weapon at me with intent to kill, I would
feel absolutlely no reservations about doing _anything_ to stop them.
> --
> John Mayo -------> may...@cs.rose-hulman.edu
> "It's 10 o'clock, do you know what time it is?"
Craig Steffen
Wielder of the Grand Unification Theory
martin frederic melhus
> HEY ASSHOLE WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE
As Jester may be on summer break (or whatever), I'd like to point out that
part of the charter of this newsgroup asks that posters avoid using
obscenities, and use the #@!$%@# method instead. If you want to mix it up,
there's always alt.flame. Please try to keep the discussions on a more
civil level.
In fairness to Mr. Lamanna, I have to point out that he is replying to
another post that contained obscenities directed at him, although they
weren't SHOUTED at him. As I have deleted the reference (inadvertently),
SFD won't get as much criticism as he deserves. Nonetheless, this does
not excuse Mr. Lamanna's post. It takes two to have a flame war, and
quibbles about who started it detract from the issue, and the quality
of the newsgroup. So, both of you, keep it on the high road, please.
> Michael Lamanna
> University At Buffalo
> Civil Engineering
>
> "It is easier to get forgiven than permission."
Martin F. Melhus - - - - - - - - mf...@midway.uchicago.edu |
Innes MacKenzie
>In article <1992May7.0...@cs.rose-hulman.edu> writes:
>> Had Rodney King had a gun, and had he
>> shot one of the officers, I would be more inclined to understand thier
>> actions. However, that would still not make it right.
>That is a completely different situation. That would be threat of death.
>If someone is firing a deadly weapon at me with intent to kill, I would
>feel absolutlely no reservations about doing _anything_ to stop them.
>
What? Even put a fruit pastel in your mouth without chewin' it?????
>> --
>> John Mayo -------> may...@cs.rose-hulman.edu
>> "It's 10 o'clock, do you know what time it is?"
>Craig Steffen
>Wielder of the Grand Unification Theory
--