The Rodney King Verdict
Clayton Cramer
I just heard that the police officers who beat Rodney King were
found innocent.
A bunch of cops beat this guy up, with some of the most powerful
evidence available of their guilt, and they get found innocent.
And you want me to trust the government, give up my guns,
and give the police an effective monopoly on deadly force?
Dream on. "Power comes from the muzzle of a gun."
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer My opinions, all mine!
USENET: one of those reminders that education is not wisdom, and frequently,
not even knowledge.
Michael DeLong
They weren't found innocent, they were found (mostly) not guilty.
The blame here goes to the prosecution. These folks couldn't have
gotten a conviction against Hitler.
Deadly force? If they had used deadly force, none of this would have
happened - it would have all been over before the cameras started rolling.
Mike.
Ted Frank
>Deadly force? If they had used deadly force, none of this would have
>happened - it would have all been over before the cameras started rolling.
Deadly force is simply force which has the potential for being deadly.
It doesn't have to actually kill to be deadly. If I were to shoot you
in the knees, that would be a use of deadly force, unless I could prove
that I was aiming for the knees, and maybe even not then.
--
....................................
ted frank | th...@midway.uchicago.edu
the university of chicago law school
take off that jumpsuit you look like grace slick
Morris the Cat
|I just heard that the police officers who beat Rodney King were
|found innocent.
|A bunch of cops beat this guy up, with some of the most powerful
|evidence available of their guilt, and they get found innocent.
|And you want me to trust the government, give up my guns,
|and give the police an effective monopoly on deadly force?
|Dream on. "Power comes from the muzzle of a gun."
KNBC-TV broadcast live LA Police Chief Daryl Gates around 2:40AM CST
stating that they were stopping the sale of guns in LA.
At least we know now why Daryl Gates and his police Ruling Elite
keep on telling the press why they are 'outraged' about the availability
of "assault weapons" to the general public.
Now we know why the California governor signed the legislation that
required all firearms transaction to go through dealers.
Now we know why HCI doesn't want "assault weapon" available to the
ordinary citizen, eh? Or the real reason that CIA-types were instrumental
in the forming of HCI...
--
"Los Angeles - Where only an _assault_weapon_ will do."
Steve Alexander
>
>happened - it would have all been over before the cameras started rolling.
>
>Mike.
You're wrong. A kick (or blow with a heavy stick) to the head, or to
other vital organs, is deadly force. If you want to define deadly
force as that which causes death, there's no need for the term.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steven Alexander
CS grad student & ste...@cs.berkeley.edu
non-practicing lawyer extraordinaire
{I'm really good at not practicing}
temporarily in the real world at: sr...@anagram.amdahl.com
(but preferring the Berkeley address)
Christopher A. Smith
And basing guilty either solely or primarily on a minute-long or so
videotape that doesn't explain *the whole picture* (no pun intended)
isn't compatible with our judicial system. There apparently was
reasonable doubt, suggesting, as you said, that the prosecution didn't
live up to their full responsibilities.
These screams of racism in the verdict are really getting to me. If
people would take the time to think about it instead of overreacting,
liek they are in LA right now, people might discover some interesting
things about our judicial system...
============================================================
Christopher Smith smi...@stolaf.edu
St. Olaf College German & Mathematics
Northfield, MN USA (and combinations thereof)
------------------------------------------------------------
"Vote Democrat -- It's easier than getting a job!"
George Neville-Neil
I find it very amusing that you are quoting Chairman Mao, an avowed
communist :-)
Later,
George
--
All right !! You sir, how about a shave ?
Come and, visit, your good friend Sweeney !
--- S. Todd
Arthu...@cup.portal.com
Given the way it was presented to the jury they had, I don't think the
outcome was unreasonable. The issue wasn't whether or not King was
beaten, it was whether or not the officers were following proper
procedure given the situation - if you had sat through all the testimony
and followed it on court TV instead of just looking at the video (which
they saw 30 times), and lived in a community that was relatively free of
crime and abuse of police power, you might have voted the same way.
As I heard, the prosecution did not object to the selection of a jury
that had no blacks in it.
Jonathan Doskow
>
>Dream on. "Power comes from the muzzle of a gun."
>--
The greatest defender of freedom in the known universe derives his
political philosophy from one of the greatest tyrants of the century?
Surprising? No, not really.
+--------------------------------------+
Anger and none can heal it slides through the metal detector
Like a mole in a motel, slide in a slide projector.
Opinions expressed are those of the author. jdo...@Tymnet.COM
John Reece
> KNBC-TV broadcast live LA Police Chief Daryl Gates around 2:40AM CST
> stating that they were stopping the sale of guns in LA.
A meaningless reflex action, since a prospective gun owner would have to sit
out the 15 day waiting period, anyway. Of course, looters can bypass
all purchase requirements, including price :-/
> "Los Angeles - Where only an _assault_weapon_ will do."
Notice how the media down there is attributing every instance of gunfire
to an AK-47?
--
John Reece
Not necessarily an Intel spokesman
Travis Craig
way they run the LAPD and want to influence their thinking and
actions, shouldn't we give them the South Africa/Arizona treatment?
What if we determine the main businesses that support their economy
and try to avoid supporting those businesses? I have no idea what
percent of their economy is in entertainment, for instance, or how
long it would take for the effect to be felt, but it might be
appropriate to buy no tapes, CDs, or videos from L.A. for a while.
Also, go to no movies and watch no TV that comes from Hollywood.
Don't go to the L.A. area on business or vacation for a while.
Schedule conventions elsewhere. Schedule major sports events
elsewhere. Learn what major products are produced in the L.A. area or
by their corporations and buy from others. In other words, make our
disgust with their system felt in a very real way.
This type of response would communicate with both the "bad guys" and
the "good guys" on this issue, but I don't know of any other possibly
effective way to communicate nor one that would only deal with the bad
guys. Any other thoughts along this line are welcome, along with data
on what products we could avoid in order to "speak" the loudest.
Elizabeth G. Levy
>
>As I heard, the prosecution did not object to the selection of a jury
>that had no blacks in it.
The prosecutors (according to one of them on a news program this
afternoon) said that they had very little ability to appeal the
change in venue. The said that they protested the change of
venue to that particular county (they wanted Alameda, or somewhere
else with a similar racial mix), but were overruled.
Elizabeth G. Levy
>
>and give the police an effective monopoly on deadly force?
>
>Dream on. "Power comes from the muzzle of a gun."
Clayton, I can't believe you're using this tragic, sorrowful, sickening
time for your idiot soapbox preaching. No, I can.
Mark Rotenberg
> For those of us outside the Los Angeles area who are shocked by the
> way they run the LAPD and want to influence their thinking and
> actions, shouldn't we give them the South Africa/Arizona treatment?
No. Was the 12-person jury's verdict the result of an open election of all
Los Angeles' residents?
> What if we determine the main businesses that support their economy
> and try to avoid supporting those businesses? I have no idea what
> percent of their economy is in entertainment, for instance, or how
> long it would take for the effect to be felt, but it might be
> appropriate to buy no tapes, CDs, or videos from L.A. for a while.
> Also, go to no movies and watch no TV that comes from Hollywood.
This defies logic impressively. It's quite clear that the people of Los
Angeles have been doing their best to target the SYSTEM which is robbing them
of their liberties. Look at the uproar generated among the public when the
original beating occurred, and the outcry against the immunity of the chief
of police in the matter; In some other countries an embarrassment such as
the King beating could lead to a chain of resignations right up to perhaps a
mayor. In Los Angeles it led to a successful movement to oust the police
chief and reform the police department.
It seems this logic could be applied to somebody in Northern California
against somebody in L.A., thereby plunging the state's already abyssmal
economy further into duress and hurting both equally. What response could
the state have? It has no more authority over the LAPD's training procedures
than much of the city's electorate. This kind of suggestion is analagous to
an african-american burning down the corner (african-american owned)
convenience store because the owner was paying his taxes into a "corrupt"
local government. Are we trying to find solutions or just burn down the
economy we all rely upon?
> This type of response would communicate with both the "bad guys" and
> the "good guys" on this issue, but I don't know of any other possibly
> effective way to communicate nor one that would only deal with the bad
> guys. Any other thoughts along this line are welcome, along with data
> on what products we could avoid in order to "speak" the loudest.
At first I wasn't going to dignify this post with a reply. Too late.
Mark Rotenberg
mr...@ucsd.edu
Bruce Salem
>For those of us outside the Los Angeles area who are shocked by the
>way they run the LAPD and want to influence their thinking and
>actions, shouldn't we give them the South Africa/Arizona treatment?
No, we should divide California into two states at about
the 37th parallel and tell all the crackpot politicians from LA
to get out of Sacremento and go set up shop in Glendale.
>What if we determine the main businesses that support their economy
>and try to avoid supporting those businesses? I have no idea what
>percent of their economy is in entertainment, for instance, or how
>long it would take for the effect to be felt, but it might be
>appropriate to buy no tapes, CDs, or videos from L.A. for a while.
>Also, go to no movies and watch no TV that comes from Hollywood.
The San Francisco Police Department has its share of
brutality cases, the Juarta case comes to mind, which was also
videotaped.
>Don't go to the L.A. area on business or vacation for a while.
>Schedule conventions elsewhere. Schedule major sports events
>elsewhere. Learn what major products are produced in the L.A. area or
>by their corporations and buy from others. In other words, make our
>disgust with their system felt in a very real way.
Yeah, we have heard this sort of stuff before, people were
going to boycott New Orleans because of the abortion law. People
might choose to stay away from LA for their own safety. Of course
they might make the same decision about NYC and there's no riot
going on there except for the normal one.
>This type of response would communicate with both the "bad guys" and
>the "good guys" on this issue, but I don't know of any other possibly
>effective way to communicate nor one that would only deal with the bad
>guys. Any other thoughts along this line are welcome, along with data
>on what products we could avoid in order to "speak" the loudest.
Sorry, but it's the little guys that get hurt, the guys who
just got burnt out trying to earn an honest buck, not the fat cats
in Century City.
Bruce Salem
Christopher A. Smith
>glam...@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:
>
>>While I don't want you to give up your guns, Clayton, your argument for
>>keeping them doesn't quite wash. I refer you, of course, to the recent
>>attempted military coup in the Soviet Union, which was succesfully fought
>>off by a population that by ANY standard had no arms to ward off the tanks
>>and troops roaming the streets of Moscow.
>
> This cuts both ways, while the demoralization of the army and
>the police could not put down the counter coup in Moscow, last august,
>the mere application of force by the LAPD, CHP, and National Guard
>will not solve the problems of LA either. If the rage of the Black
>community is strong enough, no such civilian police action as this
>will stop the violence. We could have an urban gurillia situation.
>
> This kind of senseless violence, most often directed at fellow
>blacks, while deplorable, is a sympton, an acute sign, of some deep
>wrongs that must be addressed. It is the wake up call to America and
>especially to George Bush, to change the conditions that lead to
>55% unemployment, mothers with children on welfare, drugs and gang
>warfare, violent crime, high school drop out rates, illiteracy,
>no job skills, police brutality, etc. etc.
>
>Bruce Salem
>
I feel like I'm going to heave my guts when I hear people blaming this
on Bush & Reagan. Coming from Washington, D.C., I'm *constantly*
hearing blacks and other Democrats telling the folks on welfare that
they'll be taken care of, that they don't need to find a job. So
we've got welfare crossing generational lines now. Then, when someone
comes along and proposes that children of welfare families should be
*required* to go to school, *just as the law says*, or that recipients
of welfare should, if at all possible, be forced to go back to school
or to job training, so many Democrats and black leaders go crazy! If
my tax dollars are being used to support them, then I want it used
responsibly. Put them back in school or in job training. Make the
kids go to school so that they have a chance to have a better life
than their parents have. Republicans have proposed that repeatedly,
and Democrats constantly bash it down. It's part of their platform.
Wouldn't want to take it away from 'em now, would we?
This violence isn't going to solve the problem. This country isn't
full of intellectuals, juts common everyday folk who are going to look
further down upon the blacks than they already do. They won't take
into cosnideration that there are Hispanics and Whites participating
in the riots. The violence is going to have a very strong impact on
people, no one will deny that. But it's unlikely that it'll
accomplish the reforming good that is definitely needed in this
country. It'll most likely have the opposite effect. Martin Luther
King Jr. showed us that nonviolent protests and campaigns can have a
positive effect. I'd be *much* more inclined to help reform the
system when the problems were addressed in a civilized manner. But
when they're addressed in such a barbaric manner, I'm more inclined to
say, "Let's haul in the National Guard and let them assume the duties
of a military police force. Then we'll talk afterwards."
I've been through my fair share of discrimination and prejudice in
this country because of a disability I have. I was thrown out of
school because of it, even though my grades were very high. I've been
beaten, assaulted, harassed, and almost killed on several instances by
blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, and several other ethnic groups.
There was very little legal protection for folks like me up until the
summer of 1990... But that isn't going to change the common, evernday
citizen's view of folks like me. You can't legislate that. You can
only teach it. We could overthrow the government -- Republicans and
Democrats alike -- but values and ideals of the common citizen might
not change... We're just human.
Lisa Koh
response to all the outrage over the rodney king verdict...
they're changing their logo from a shield to a pinata...
(da-dum-dum!)
sorry, i couldn't resist; the deluge of posts has been
too serious & somber for me
hook 'em
~\/~
lisa
Mike Batchelor
> This type of response would communicate with both the "bad guys" and
> the "good guys" on this issue, but I don't know of any other possibly
> effective way to communicate nor one that would only deal with the bad
> guys. Any other thoughts along this line are welcome, along with data
> on what products we could avoid in order to "speak" the loudest.
Maybe you could start by boycotting Usenet.
[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor -- mi...@batpad.lgb.CA.US -- cerritos.edu!batpad!mike
[] Long Beach, California
[] Vote for ME - I'm well-tapered, half-cocked, ill-conceived and TAX-DEFERRED!
Clayton Cramer
> cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# }I just heard that the police officers who beat Rodney King were
# }found innocent.
#
# }A bunch of cops beat this guy up, with some of the most powerful
# }evidence available of their guilt, and they get found innocent.
#
# }And you want me to trust the government, give up my guns,
# }and give the police an effective monopoly on deadly force?
#
# }Dream on. "Power comes from the muzzle of a gun."
#
# I agree that this verdict is the biggest travesty I've ever heard of in
# American "justice". But I don't see how you can use it as a springboard
# for more of your "don't trust the government" rhetoric. Many in government --
# including the mayor of LA -- have already denounced the verdict. One of
# the TV stations up here interviewed a bunch of people on the street after
# the verdict. A COP said, "They're guilty as sin, but what can you do?"
#
# --James Preston
The criminal justice system tells the police that they can engage in
such brutality, and you don't understand why I don't trust the government
to be reasonable?
What's wrong with this picture?
LAPD can't stop looters, but they are actively disarming merchants
trying to protect their businesses. This is WORSE than anarchy.
At least in anarchy, the government wouldn't be preventing people
from defending themselves.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer My opinions, all mine!
LAPD: strong enough to oppress, too weak to protect.
Clayton Cramer
> And I thought most of the law-and-order folks would support the outcome.
Why? Law and order applies to the government ESPECIALLY because of
their power.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer My opinions, all mine!
Clayton Cramer
But I am not at all surprised to see liberals trying to justify why
the government should disarm the population -- so that only the
police are armed.
I am not at all surprised that liberals are trying to prevent decent
law-abiding people from obtaining weapons in L.A. After all, if
looters try to burn down the building next door to your house, the
correct liberal response is to dial 911, and hope that someone comes
in a day or two to draw chalk marks around your body, and pour a
little water on the smoldering ashes.
Looters don't bother with waiting periods for guns. Liberals are
insistent on disarming law-abiding people so that we beg for more
police state tactics to deal with crime.
The riots in Los Angeles are the last dying gasp of liberalism.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer My opinions, all mine!
Wayne A. Christopher
> and give the police an effective monopoly on deadly force?
Would it have helped Rodney King if he had a gun? Have you ever had
to defend yourself against police with a gun? The police do have an
effective monopoly on deadly force -- there are more of them and they
are better armed than you could ever be. Our only hope is to regain
control over them through our government, not fight violence with
violence. Look what's happening in LA. That does nobody any good.
We have to exert legal control over the police, and make sure that
such a miscarriage of justice can't happen again.
Wayne
John Reece
> And the Castro street sweep (assaulting and arresting people
> totally unconnected with the protest). And the Gulf War protests
> (clubbing non-violent demonstrators). And those are just the big
> outbreaks. The SF PD is second only to the LA PD in reputation for
> brutality in this state--and this is the most liberal city in the
> country!. It's unbelievable that we have such pigs for cops.
This reputation comes about because San Francisco has a sizable
population of professional radicals and street punks who like to start
brawls with the cops and then turn on the video cams and whine about
police brutality when the cops start to get the upper hand.
> That's right, in a city with one of the most active and also
> one of the most non-violent protestor communities in the country,
> the dregs of the force are regularly unleashed on unresisting
> demonstrators instead of writing parking tickets.
Most non-violent protestor communities? What utter bullshit.
IMHO the each and every member of the SF "protestor community" deserves
the kind of beating Rodney King didn't.
Michael P. Anderson
> This kind of senseless violence, most often directed at fellow
>blacks, while deplorable, is a sympton, an acute sign, of some deep
>wrongs that must be addressed. It is the wake up call to America and
>especially to George Bush, to change the conditions that lead to
>55% unemployment, mothers with children on welfare, drugs and gang
>warfare, violent crime, high school drop out rates, illiteracy,
>no job skills, police brutality, etc. etc.
I might add that in the U.S., one out of every four black men under the
age of 20 is presently behind bars. For white men it's one out of 16.
Hey George, why is that?
MPA
Guido Marx
>The prosecutors (according to one of them on a news program this
>afternoon) said that they had very little ability to appeal the
>change in venue. The said that they protested the change of
>venue to that particular county (they wanted Alameda, or somewhere
>else with a similar racial mix), but were overruled.
Ohhh, the poor little prosecutor. This is a bunch of crap. If they
had wanted to fight the change of venue they certainly could have done
more than they did. Look at it this way - suppose that it was four
black youths accused of beating a white cop. Further suppose
that the proposed change of venue was to be to South Central L.A. Do
you really think that the prosecution would simply throw up their hands
and say "Well, there's nothing we can do about it".
Guido
Elizabeth G. Levy
>In article <1992May1.0...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>,
>What was the justification for moving it to Simi Valley?
It wasn't clear who chose the new site. The prosecutor noted
that one of the reasons Simi Valley was chosen was because of
financial considerations. It would have cost too much to move
the trial to Alameda.
>
>Were there no black people in the pool of jurors?
I heard (NYT? Koppel?) that there were 6 blacks in the pool.
I don't know how much power the defense has in disallowing jurors.
Phil Ronzone
>Horseshit. Come out of your suburban rat hole and see the
>truth in this city. Dolores Huerte was an unarmed,
>non-violent protestor when her spleen was crushed by the
>baton of an SF PD captain. SF PD TAC squad neanderthals
>clubbed sit-in protestors without provocation during the Gulf
>War protests. Don't answer back that this is exaggeration; it
>was all caught on video as clearly as King's beating.
>
>In case you hadn't figured it out, you dumb fuckhead, no one
>goes to a protest looking for trouble with a video cam in
>their hand. Have any "professional radicals" been linked to
>violent protests or looting in the past five years? No. What
>are the "professional radicals" doing at these protests?
>Appealing for calm and non-resistance while fending off baton
>blows. God, your ignorance of San Francisco is astounding.
He he he. Of course, SF being politically correct it did NOT pursue
a full defense (which honestly was not likely to be allowed) of dear sweet
old Huerte, caught in police videotapes in other tapes, goading and
pursuing (with other professional demonstrators) matyr producing tactices.
>Hey, led any beer hall putsches lately? There's a funny
>little ol' thing we got in this country called free speech.
>In your humble jackass opinion this concept doesn't exist. Oh
>my, does it grate your twisted soul to see gays protesting
>for basic protections of their rights? Well just abstract the...
Wow!!!! I didn't know that burning police cars is "protesting for basic
protections of their rights".
>What really disgusts me is your typical suburban weenie line
>about protestors not having the balls cops have. If I walked
Interesting. I would think that where a person lives, like national
origins, would be known even to you to be prejudiced. Tsk tsk tsk ...
>don't have the guts to stand up to a cop with a baton and a
>gun trying to abrogate your right to free speech, but I've
>done it and I'll do it again. The fact is that if you raise
>your voice to them, they'll club you. If you hit back,
Well, they are only trying to save you from a deserved death from angry
commuters trying to go to and from work to pay taxes to support your
loafing ass. Of have I made a wrong assumption here??? :-)
--
ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...
These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Peter Creath
In article <1992May...@birch.cs.Virginia.EDU> (talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics), ma...@birch.cs.Virginia.EDU (Michael DeLong) writes:
> In article <1992May1.0...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>,
> eg...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> |> The prosecutors (according to one of them on a news program this
> |> afternoon) said that they had very little ability to appeal the
> |> change in venue. The said that they protested the change of
> |> venue to that particular county (they wanted Alameda, or somewhere
> |> else with a similar racial mix), but were overruled.
> |>
>
> So who decided where the trial would be held? The judge?
> What was the justification for moving it to Simi Valley?
Hmm...I had heard that the prosecution moved it to Simi Valley...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Creath "When I was a boy I was told that anybody could
pet...@moebius.cubetech.com become president; I'm beginning to believe it."
-- Clarence Darrow
Tom Tedrick
the government, by increasing the willingness of the productive
elements in society to support coercive use of force by the
state, in order to maintain order and protect property.
We've seen it all before. In Germany efforts by the left to
overthrow the existing order strengthened the rightist elements
in society, eventually culminating in Hitlerism.
The goals sought by the left (government action in the form
of social welfare programs) also require further strengthening
of the state (not least the IRS, for purposes of collecting
the taxes needed to fund these programs).
For example, the cynical European socialist politicians, such as
Mitterand in France, blaming our problems on lack of government
social welfare programs in America, know perfectly well that such
social welfare programs are only a cover for increasing the political
power of the left. When such programs are implemented, they drain
resources from the productive elements in society, and support an
increase in the number of unproductive elements, setting the stage
for further conflicts down the road. Eventually the black hole explodes
though, as was the case in Moscow. In the mean time, the beneficiaries
of this process of social destruction are the politicians, bureaucrats,
careerists and criminals, who are crafty enough to exploit the
stupidity of the masses and enrich themselves by draining resources
from the state, along with the capitalists who are able to move their
wealth out of reach of the state when necessary, investing in the
most profitable opportunities that are available along the way.
I'd like to see 50 million ghetto dwellers dropped into the
middle of Europe, and see how France and Germany like it when
the shoe is on the other foot. We all know the German solution
for social unrest (gas chambers for everyone who dares criticize
the state). Not to mention the bloody French revolution, and the
consequent upheavals in Europe, as an example of what happens when
you let the mob run wild :-)
The most laughable thing of all is to hear the Britts criticize
America for its problems with racial conflict. Seems the world
has already forgotten the history of the British Empire :-)
Anyways, I think the only hope is to terminate the public
"school" system. These are really just job programs for parasitic
"teachers" and bureaucrats, who produce new hordes of intellectually
crippled socialist-minded students each year, incapable of productive
work, and useful only for creating more chaos and confusion
in society, which requires further strengthening of the police
powers of the state. If students had to pay real money to
attend private schools, I'd expect they would be a little more
careful and try to choose courses which would yield a positive
return on their investment.
Another possibility is to increase immigration from Asia. The
Asian population here has proven to be extremely hard-working
and productive, and by sheer numbers Asian immigrants may be
able to outweigh the unproductive hordes living in our inner
cities. Whites have given up hope and moved away when possible,
and in any case the white population is far too divided between
right and left to come to agreement about what needs to be done.
Blacks were better off when they were the only significant
minority group with grievances against the white majority. Now
whites are becoming a minority themselves, and no other population
group is willing to take on the guilt-trip mentality required
in order to justify transferring their wealth to the blacks.
Bruce Salem
>The ironic thing is that the student protesters are strengthening
>the government, by increasing the willingness of the productive
>elements in society to support coercive use of force by the
>state, in order to maintain order and protect property.
Oh, I see, Productive == Conservative.
>The goals sought by the left (government action in the form
>of social welfare programs) also require further strengthening
>of the state (not least the IRS, for purposes of collecting
>the taxes needed to fund these programs).
Oh, I see, Less Government is always better.
>In the mean time, the beneficiaries
>of this process of social destruction are the politicians, bureaucrats,
>careerists and criminals, who are crafty enough to exploit the
>stupidity of the masses and enrich themselves by draining resources
>from the state, along with the capitalists who are able to move their
>wealth out of reach of the state when necessary, investing in the
>most profitable opportunities that are available along the way.
Oh, I see, you are describing the history of the last
ten years. You are describing the most corrupt administration
in U.S. history, under Ronald Reagan and George Bush, who cut
tax support from the state, while capitalists became filthy
rich, multinational, and let technology and capital leave
our shores, investing in more profitable and better run foreign
companies.
>Anyways, I think the only hope is to terminate the public
>"school" system. These are really just job programs for parasitic
>"teachers" and bureaucrats, who produce new hordes of intellectually
>crippled socialist-minded students each year, incapable of productive
>work, and useful only for creating more chaos and confusion
>in society, which requires further strengthening of the police
>powers of the state. If students had to pay real money to
>attend private schools, I'd expect they would be a little more
>careful and try to choose courses which would yield a positive
>return on their investment.
Get rid of public education, which everyone must have, at
least, and you can kiss this republic good bye. If we succeed in
creating a pernament, illiterate, unemployable underclass, as we
are trying to do, we can kiss the personal freedoms of this
republic good bye. We must reform education to make sure that
it provides the skills everybody needs. A voucher to private
school alternatives is a bad idea because it endorses the trend
that public schools, feeling the pinch from the failure of the
Reagan Era fiscal policies, will become the place for left overs,
after everyone who can has fled them. That is their death knell.
>Another possibility is to increase immigration from Asia. The
>Asian population here has proven to be extremely hard-working
>and productive, and by sheer numbers Asian immigrants may be
>able to outweigh the unproductive hordes living in our inner
>cities. Whites have given up hope and moved away when possible,
>and in any case the white population is far too divided between
>right and left to come to agreement about what needs to be done.
Right, and watch capital flow even faster off shore.
>Blacks were better off when they were the only significant
>minority group with grievances against the white majority. Now
>whites are becoming a minority themselves, and no other population
>group is willing to take on the guilt-trip mentality required
>in order to justify transferring their wealth to the blacks.
This is racist. You cannot make these generalizations stick,
and you can't blame the deterioration of Black insititutions on
them alone. Racism means that people are treated differently because
of assumptions based on the color of their skin. Drug dealing meets
all the criteria of a productive economic activity, it is the activity
of choice for many when there are no oppertunities. The high stakes
in gangs and drugs comes from the economics of the illicit trade
and the protection of turf for greed.
Productivity does not equal justice, but access to political
rights often means access to economic resources. Segergating people
between productive and non-productive, ignoring the latter, which is
what has been consciously done for the past ten years, sows the seeds
of violence and revolution, especially in this materialistic society.
That is why people showed their anger, greed, hatred, criminality in
LA by looting and arson, because the name of the game is to be
productive and to get material comfort thereby. Its the American
thing to do. No, the thing to do is to get these people back into
the economic mainstream, then they will be in the political mainstream
and share the same rights as the rest of us do.
The problem with the Simi Valley Jurors is that they assume
that the police are to be regarded in exactly the opposite sense that
the residents of South Central LA do. They cannot begin to understand
the mindset of the citizens of of the police that have to confront them.
An injustice is that it falls to the police to be the representatives of
the state who primarily deal with the problems of the 'hood, next comes
the welfare case worker or probation officer or paramedic. Too far down
the list is the politician or employment agent or teacher. This is almost
directly due to the policies of the Reagan/Bush years in government.
Bruce Salem
A T Furman
>That is why people showed their anger, greed, hatred, criminality in
>LA by looting and arson...
What an insensitive thing to say. You must be a white male. And I
thought Stanford was a politically correct campus.
I'll let you off with a warning this time, but you better remember, it's
not "looting", it's "grass-roots nongovernmental entitlement program."
Alan T. Furman | Vote Libertarian--Marrou/Lord in '92
----------------------------+--------------------------------------------
atfu...@cup.portal.com | Stamp out signature viruses! Pass it on!
Jyrki Kuoppala
>I agree that this verdict is the biggest travesty I've ever heard of in
>American "justice".
I am not familiar with the justice history of Canada and all the
Southern American countries etc and there might be bigger travesties
there but anyway I gather that you haven't heard about a certain
Manuel Noriega being at "justice" in Miami.
//Jyrki
Gene Pinkston/VDSP
live in? Then dont just vent these feelings over the net, tell your congressmen
and senators (some addresses below) how you feel. Below is a letter that I
have sent to my congressman. Please feel free to use it if it refelcts your
feelings on the matter and send a copy to your federal representatives. If
the name and address of your representatives are not listed below, your local
library should have that information. If you have names and addresses for
other districts, consider posting it.
-------------------------------cut here-----------------------------------
Dear Congressman ____________________,
I find the jury's verdict in the case of the four Los Angeles Police Officers
who beat Mr. King to be shameful. If police officers cannot be found guilty of
brutality in a case where the brutality is captured on videotape, under what
circumstances can police officers be found guilty of brutality? America cannot
continue to allow those who enforce the laws of the nation to be unaccountable
to those laws. The result is a breakdown of trust between the people and law
enforcement officials--a prescription for anarchy.
As an elected representative of my congressional district, you must exercise
all of your influence to ensure that the Justice Department indicts all of
law enforcement officers involved in this violation of Mr. King's civil and
human rights. Furthermore, as a preventive measure it is imperative that
you introduce legislation making the use of excessive force by law enforcement
officers a federal offense. We must all send a message to the law enforcers
that they cannot continue to randomly brutalize the citizens of this country.
Please notify me of any action you take in this matter.
No notification = no action = NO VOTE!
Sincerely,
---------------------------------cut here-------------------------------------------
ALL OF THE REPRESENTATIVES LISTED BELOW ARE UP FOR REELECTION THIS YEAR
CA Senators
-----------
Alan Cranston
112 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20510
District Office:
1390 Market St.
Suite 918
San Francisco, CA 94102
--
John Seymour
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
District Office:
2150 Towne Center Pl. #205
Anaheim, CA 92806
10th Congressional District -- Fremont and the eastern half of San Jose
---------------------------
Don Edwards
2307 Rayburn H.O.B.
Washington, D.C. 20515
Local Office:
1042 W. Hedding St.
Suite 100
San Jose, CA 95126
11th Cong. Dist -- most of San Mateo Co.
---------------
Tom Lantos
1526 Longworth H.O.B.
Washington, D.C. 20515
Local Office:
400 El Camino Real
Suite 800
San Mateo, CA 94402
12th Cong. Dist-- most of Santa Clara Co.
---------------
Tom Campbell
516 Cannon H.O.B
Washington, D.C. 20515
Local Office:
599 N. Mathilda
Suite 105
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
13th Cong. Dist-- western half of San Jose
---------------
Norman Mineta
2350 Rayburn H.O.B.
Washington, D.C 20515
Local Office:
1245 S. Winchester Blvd.
Suite 310
San Jose, CA 95128
Clayton Cramer
> >In article <1992May1.2...@igor.tamri.com>, do...@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
# # A nightstick DOES count as deadly force. Clayton's right. I just
# # wish the rioters were going after the LAPD, instead of other innocent
# # people...
#
# ----
# So now every member of the LAPD is guilty too?
# And we should lynch them all?
# You guys are incredible.
It would be at least understandable if all that anger had been
directed at LAPD. That wouldn't make it right, however, because not
every member of LAPD is a brutal thug. (I say that with some certainty,
having had a variety of experiences with LAPD).
# I wish all the rioters would go home and try
# to figure out a way to make some good use out
# of the energy from their anger and frustration.
#
# Mark E. Slagle PO Box 61059
This assumes that the rioters were doing what they did as a political
statement. They weren't. It's clear that the savages decided it was
time to destroy and engage in lynchings of whites. (That's the only
accurate description of the racially-motivated attacks that happened
in L.A., and even here in Santa Rosa).
Mark Slagle
> As an elected representative of my congressional district, you must
> exercise all of your influence to ensure that the Justice Department
> indicts all of law enforcement officers involved in this violation
> of Mr. King's civil and human rights.
Oh, I see. You want a political show trial. Never mind the facts,
just have your Congressman throw his weight around to get an
indictment. Who needs the Grand Jury when we can just pressure the
Justice Department to get what we want. But if you're going to do
that, why bother with the criminal justice system at all. Why not
just have the Congress draw up a bill of indictment and have the
"defendants" hanged in the rotunda. Of course we could avoid the
whole untidy mess by declaring the policemen insane and locking
them in "asylums" like they did with all the inconvenient people
in the USSR. Yeah, let's do that.
> Furthermore, as a preventive measure it is imperative that you
> introduce legislation making the use of excessive force by law
> enforcement officers a federal offense.
Why hedge. Why don't you just call for a Federal police force
and get it over with. Then we can be done with this messy
republic business once and for all. How does the phrase
Emperor Bush sound to you?
It's amazing how fast some people want to give up our rights
now that we've got some defendants that we can really get our
teeth into. Do you really want criminal trials to be decided
by the will of the majority? Do you really think that this
will result in justice for minorities, ANY minorities, not just
the politically sanctioned ones?
--
----
Mark E. Slagle PO Box 61059
sla...@lmsc.lockheed.com Sunnyvale, CA 94088
408-756-0895 USA
The Chipmunk
by do...@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin):
: In article <1992Apr3...@batik.cs.Virginia.EDU>
: ma...@batik.cs.Virginia.EDU (Michael DeLong) writes:
: >In article <10...@optilink.UUCP>,
: > cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)writes:
[...]
: >Deadly force? If they had used deadly force, none of this would have
: >happened - it would have all been over before the cameras started rolling.
:
: A nightstick DOES count as deadly force. Clayton's right. I just
: wish the rioters were going after the LAPD, instead of other innocent
: people...
The LAPD were wisely (!!) in hiding, probably because of this very
sentiment. I wish they had been out there doing their job: the whole
rioting mess *_might_* have been prevented.
My wife mentioned (and I suppose others have similar sentiments) that
the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. In which
case, my opinion is that they should DO, since that's what we're paying
them for. If the TV crews can find people breaking the law within 10
minutes of the verdict, why can't the cops?
Notice, however, that we are NOT paying them to beat the snot out of
people on suspicion of being stoned on PCP, or whatever other lame
excuses they used.
--
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, your mileage may vary, void where prohibited.
Don Baldwin
No, but if the guy with the video camera (and a couple friends) had
grabbed guns instead of the camera, who knows...
The Chipmunk
by sa...@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem):
: glam...@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:
:
: >While I don't want you to give up your guns, Clayton, your argument for
: >keeping them doesn't quite wash. I refer you, of course, to the recent
: >attempted military coup in the Soviet Union, which was succesfully fought
: >off by a population that by ANY standard had no arms to ward off the tanks
: >and troops roaming the streets of Moscow.
:
: This cuts both ways, while the demoralization of the army and
: the police could not put down the counter coup in Moscow, last august,
: the mere application of force by the LAPD, CHP, and National Guard
: will not solve the problems of LA either. If the rage of the Black
: community is strong enough, no such civilian police action as this
: will stop the violence. We could have an urban gurillia situation.
Small correction. This was NOT the "rage of the Black community." The
Black Community is no more interested in violence than anyone else.
This viloence was the result of:
1) A microscopic number of "protesters" who sparked everything with
their "simulated King beatings" of innocent by-standers.
2) A small (SMALL) minority of people who took advantage of the
situation.
3) A large (LARGE) group of thugs and hoodlums. (How much do you
want to bet that when the smoke clears, 80% of the arrestees will
have prior criminal records?)
a) Note that the quantity of thugs and hoodlums would never
have grown this large without the inhenerent viciousness
that is required to deal in illegal drugs.
4) Some few shopowners who paid arsonists to burn the shop for the
insurance.
Caveat: all these "quantities(?)" are mere speculation.
The point is this: "The Black Community" wants peace like everyone else.
Most of the victims and their neighbors are hard-working individuals who
have little or no interest in vengeange of any kind against anyone.
Preaching to "The Black Community" to stop the violence is like "preaching
to the choir."
(Note: I quote "Black Community" because the violence was not strictly
in "black" communities. There were hispanics and whites involved, and
there were black, white, asian, and hispanic victims. The areas of
violence are more diverse than the media gives them credit for.)
What we need to do is catch and prosecute the thugs and hoodlums who took
advantage of the police's apparent impotence.
--
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, your mileage may vary, void where prohibited.
Know thyself. If you need help, call the C.I.A.
Andy Freeman
>> A nightstick DOES count as deadly force. Clayton's right. I just
>> wish the rioters were going after the LAPD, instead of other innocent
>> people...
>
It depends on whether or not LAPD is an occupying army or an agent of
a local tyranny. If it is, then fighting against all is justified on
the same basis that one attacks everyone wearing the "wrong" uniform
without regard for individual "guilt".
BTW - LAPD has 5k people. Even if superior tactics and weaponry give
them a 10:1 advantage, they can't afford to stand and fight.
-andy
--
UUCP: {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA: an...@cs.stanford.edu
Anthony Koumis
>In article <1992May1.0...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, eg...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>> In article <10...@optilink.UUCP> cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> >
>> >And you want me to trust the government, give up my guns,
>> >and give the police an effective monopoly on deadly force?
>> >
>> >Dream on. "Power comes from the muzzle of a gun."
>>
>> Clayton, I can't believe you're using this tragic, sorrowful, sickening
>> time for your idiot soapbox preaching. No, I can.
>
>But I am not at all surprised to see liberals trying to justify why
>the government should disarm the population -- so that only the
>police are armed.
>
>I am not at all surprised that liberals are trying to prevent decent
>law-abiding people from obtaining weapons in L.A. After all, if
>looters try to burn down the building next door to your house, the
>correct liberal response is to dial 911, and hope that someone comes
>in a day or two to draw chalk marks around your body, and pour a
>little water on the smoldering ashes.
>
>Looters don't bother with waiting periods for guns. Liberals are
>insistent on disarming law-abiding people so that we beg for more
>police state tactics to deal with crime.
>
>The riots in Los Angeles are the last dying gasp of liberalism.
>--
The last dying gasp of liberalism. Try they are a reaction to 12 years
of neglect of our cities by ronnie and goerge. And 12 years of letting
the govt play with race and pnder to white middle class. Ronnie ran
on that mythical black welfare woman queen who was stealing gov't money.
George ran on Willie Horton - who lee atwater wanted to make the famous
black man in the US. With people like that in power is their any
wonder that poor minority areas are ripe for expression of outrage and
anger and frustration over the verdict in the King case? Unfortunately,
the repsonse was violetnt etc. etc. But the riots express more tahtn
just the verdict.
Steve Alexander
>In article <qt=k8_q.b...@netcom.com> bpro...@netcom.com (Gert Niewahr) writes:
>...
> >don't have the guts to stand up to a cop with a baton and a
> >gun trying to abrogate your right to free speech, but I've
> >done it and I'll do it again. The fact is that if you raise
> >your voice to them, they'll club you. If you hit back,
>
>Well, they are only trying to save you from a deserved death from angry
>commuters trying to go to and from work to pay taxes to support your
>loafing ass. Of have I made a wrong assumption here??? :-)
>
>--
>ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
I see. Being clubbed is a form of protection for which we should be
grateful.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steven Alexander
CS grad student & ste...@cs.berkeley.edu
non-practicing lawyer extraordinaire
{I'm really good at not practicing}
temporarily in the real world at: sr...@anagram.amdahl.com
(but preferring the Berkeley address)
Patricia Jazanoski
It sounds like the prosecution really dropped the ball here:
1) the defense attorneys forced a binary decision. The defendents were
tried for one crime (criminal force??) and could not be found guilty
of a lessor crime. (unnecessary force??). I have no idea how
this happenend....
2) the defendant is guaranteed a trial by a jury of his/her peers. The
defendants here were the police offices, not Rodney King, and Simi
Valley is home to many police officers. I doubt that most defendants
have a jury with such similiar backgrounds (i.e. race, religion,
education, economic, political views). In the case of some
defendants, I would hope that 12 such people wouldn't exist...at
least within close proximity of each other....
Patti Jazanoski
Lucy Chan
>And you want me to trust the government, give up my guns,
>and give the police an effective monopoly on deadly force?
>Dream on. "Power comes from the muzzle of a gun."
On Friday night, a relative of mine was shot in the head twenty feet from
the front door of her house in Pasadena, CA, by three hoodlums who, I suppose,
were protesting the results of the trial. She was a wife and mother who was
only trying to return home to her family.
Just who the hell is in this "well-armed militia" that has the constitutional
right to bear arms?
System Administrator
stated that they couldn't get a fair shake in L.A. The prosecution then
asked for Oakland, San Fran or San Diego. Trying to get a large city. I
don't know how it got moved to Simi Valley. All I remember is the
prosecution complaining about it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ProLine: rsopicki@pro-amber | System Administrator
Internet: rsop...@pro-amber.cts.com | of
UUCP: crash!pro-amber!rsopicki | Pro-Amber
CIS: 7514...@compuserve.com | 619-460-9762
Joe Buck
>
>It sounds like the prosecution really dropped the ball here:
>
>1) the defense attorneys forced a binary decision. The defendents were
> tried for one crime (criminal force??) and could not be found guilty
> of a lessor crime. (unnecessary force??). I have no idea how
> this happenend....
It didn't happen. The defendents were not tried for one crime, but for
several, that fall into three categories: assault, excessive force under
color of authority, and filing false police reports.
The defendants basically admitted that what happened did not correspond to
what they wrote in their police reports on the stand. At the very least,
conviction on those counts should have been open-and-shut. Perhaps the
prosecution could have been more effective in emphasizing this: i.e. "So,
then, officer XYZ, you admit to filing a false police report?"
The one count on which the jury hung was an excessive-force count on the
cop who did most of the beating. The jury could have issued a split
decision, finding excessive force and false police reports but dismissing
on criminal assault. It could have convicted three of the cops but freed
the fourth, the one who testified that the others were guilty and he was
trying to stop them (by the way, defenders of the jury, how do you explain
this man's testimony?). It could have decided the 11 counts in any
mixture. I am amazed that the jury apparently decided 10 of the 11
counts in six hours; to do so required ignoring a great deal of evidence.
The jury needed not only to ignore the videotape: they had to ignore the
discrepancies between the police reports and the videotape; they had to
ignore the testimony of the cop who wrote the manual about excessive use
of force (that is, the person who sets the standards LAPD uses for saying
what is excessive force testified that these officers violated it).
>2) the defendant is guaranteed a trial by a jury of his/her peers.
>[ Argument that Simi Valley jury was closer to "peers" with the officers]
"peers", in the British system, meant that a lord was to be tried by other
lords, a knight by other knights, and a peasant by other peasants. There
were official class distinctions, and these were to be recognized when a
defendant was tried.
In the American tradition, there are no legally recognized class
restrictions: everyone is legally everyone else's peers. To assure
fairness in cases where race prejudice may be involved, I think that the
best way to produce verdicts that are fair to all sides and that the
community (communities) will accept is to have juries from mixed
backgrounds that reflect the mixed backgrounds of the people involved in
the case.
--
Joe Buck jb...@ohm.berkeley.edu
Dwight Joe
>On Friday night, a relative of mine was shot in the head twenty feet from
>the front door of her house in Pasadena, CA, by three hoodlums who, I suppose,
>were protesting the results of the trial. She was a wife and mother who was
>only trying to return home to her family.
First, let's get this straight, and I'm sure that you'll correct me if I'm
articulating inaccurately. Gun control laws are intended to stop the most
likely sort of fatal violence: domestic violence. In other words, the
most likely use of deadly force is by some hot-headed person who
blows his top and discharges a gun at one of his relatives.
The incident that you described is not related to domestic violence.
>
>Just who the hell is in this "well-armed militia" that has the constitutional
>right to bear arms?
If the Korean shop-keepers in LA did not have guns, they would have
suffered even more looting, vandalism, and murderous assaults. An animal
in the process of rioting is not intent on listening to reason at all.
The only way to stop it is to put a hole through its head.
Don't take this as an advocation of guns. We should oppose any sort of
violence or weapon of violence. A gun has no purpose whatsoever except
to kill and hence is a weapon of violence. But there's also such a thing
as reality. America is not Japan. Japan is relatively peaceful and safe.
America is much more violent. Americans are much more violent and
aggressive than the Japanese. How is one to defend oneself in face
of animalistic violence? (Hand guns are banned in Japan.)
This last paragraph sounds kind of ambivalent, and it should.
It's usually the tone of a cynic, me being one.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seikatsu no imi ha nan desu ka. \| |` | Don't buy from Toyota;
Shitte itara oshiete kuremasen ka. | -+- | especially, don't buy
/| / \ | from Capitol Toyota in
Copyright 1992. | San Jose, California.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Suranyi
>I'm almost positive that the defense asked for the change of venue. They
>stated that they couldn't get a fair shake in L.A. The prosecution then
>asked for Oakland, San Fran or San Diego. Trying to get a large city. I
>don't know how it got moved to Simi Valley. All I remember is the
>prosecution complaining about it.
It was moved to Simi Valley primarily because the city of Los Angeles
wanted to save money! After the judge agreed that the trial should be
moved out of Los Angeles County because of pre-trial publicity (a very
debatable decision, but anyway. . .) cities such as the ones you mentioned
were considered. But L.A. decided they could save money by holding
the trial as close to L.A. County as possible. Otherwise they'd have
to pay much more for transportation for all the people involved. So
Ventura County was chosen because it's next to L.A. County. Very
ironic, since this decision likely ended up costing L.A. almost a billion
dollars!
A nigga 4 life
Yes i do - Seeing how the judge made the final decision which moved the
trial to Simi valley, I really don't see the this being the DA's fault. What
was he supposed to do ? organize a sit in ? riot ? maybe loot the judge's
office ? Here in sunny california, once the judge makes his decision, it is
the final one. For whatever reason he might deem appropriate - the
prosecution has nothing to do with the final decision.
Andy Freeman
>on criminal assault. It could have convicted three of the cops but freed
>the fourth, the one who testified that the others were guilty and he was
>trying to stop them (by the way, defenders of the jury, how do you explain
>this man's testimony?).
While I'm not a defender of the jury, there's nothing to explain. The
jury decided that that officer's opinion was wrong. There's nothing
inconsistent about that. (If he'd been charged with being wrong about
whether or not excessive f{rce was used and acquitted, then there
would be, but ....)
Andy Freeman
>First, let's get this straight, and I'm sure that you'll correct me if I'm
>articulating inaccurately. Gun control laws are intended to stop the most
>likely sort of fatal violence: domestic violence. In other words, the
>most likely use of deadly force is by some hot-headed person who
>blows his top and discharges a gun at one of his relatives.
Unfortunately for that theory, the only "hot-headed" people in the US
who take a shot at their relatives have a history of similar violence.
We typically call people with such histories "thugs" and "criminals".
They have relatives, friends, acquaintances, and so on. It really
isn't surprising that they attack them as well as others.
Michael Wang
ted...@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes:
>Anyways, I think the only hope is to terminate the public
>"school" system. These are really just job programs for parasitic
>"teachers" and bureaucrats, who produce new hordes of intellectually
>crippled socialist-minded students each year, incapable of productive
>work, and useful only for creating more chaos and confusion
>in society, which requires further strengthening of the police
>powers of the state.
That's funny, you are posting from one of the finest public universities
in the country. California is widely recognized as having one of the
best, if not the best, public higher education school system in the U.S.
The Bay Area is also home of some of the finest public high schools
in the country. Are you saying we should get rid of all that?
>If students had to pay real money to attend private schools, I'd expect
>they would be a little more careful and try to choose courses which would
>yield a positive return on their investment.
Where are the poor going to get money to pay for a private education?
--
Michael Wang
mmw...@adobe.com
Mike Batchelor
> cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
> >And you want me to trust the government, give up my guns,
> >and give the police an effective monopoly on deadly force?
>
> >Dream on. "Power comes from the muzzle of a gun."
>
> On Friday night, a relative of mine was shot in the head twenty feet from
> the front door of her house in Pasadena, CA, by three hoodlums who, I suppose
> were protesting the results of the trial. She was a wife and mother who was
> only trying to return home to her family.
I'm terribly sorry that this happened to your family.
> Just who the hell is in this "well-armed militia" that has the constitutional
> right to bear arms?
It's "well-regulated militia", not "well-armed."
Were it not for what remains of the protections provided for in the
Second Amendment there are hundreds of businesses in Koreatown and
South Central that would not be open for business today.
And your relative would still have been shot in the head by hoodlums
with a gun.
[] Mike Batchelor -- mi...@batpad.lgb.CA.US -- cerritos.edu!batpad!mike
[] Long Beach, California
[] Today's survey question: Do you think usenet readers should be charged
[] a modem tax, with all proceeds used to send postcards to Craig Shergold?
[] -- Mike Rose, mr...@stsci.edu
Clayton Cramer
1. See 10 U.S.Code 311. The militia includes all able-bodied males
between 18 and 45 who are U.S. citizens or who have started the
paperwork to become citizens.
2. The right is of the people -- not just the militia.
3. The scum in L.A. beat people to death, stabbed people to death,
and shot people to death. Part of the reason they were able to do
so is that their victims, by California law, wouldn't be able to
protect themselves. For practical purposes, you can't get a permit
to carry a gun in Los Angeles County. That doesn't stop the criminals,
of course -- it just guarantees to the criminals that decent
people like your relative won't be armed.
Charles Roten
In article <lucy.70...@sfu.ca> lu...@beaufort.sfu.ca (Lucy Chan)
writes:
>On Friday night, a relative of mine was shot in the head twenty feet
>from the front door of her house in Pasadena, CA, by three hoodlums
>who, I suppose, were protesting the results of the trial. She was a
>wife and mother who was only trying to return home to her family.
First, let's get this straight, and I'm sure that you'll correct me if
I'm articulating inaccurately. Gun control laws are intended to stop
the most likely sort of fatal violence: domestic violence. In other
words, the most likely use of deadly force is by some hot-headed
person who blows his top and discharges a gun at one of his relatives.
And they do a damned poor job of it too, don't they.
Never expect that kind of legislation to have a sizable impact on ANY
social problem. You cannot write legislation which uses a philosophical
model of the citizen as ward_of_the_state, and expect responsible
behavior of them later.
The incident that you described is not related to domestic violence.
>Just who the hell is in this "well-armed militia" that has the
>constitutional right to bear arms?
My mother is arthritic, her back has never recovered from the vertabrae
she broke as a child, and she is pushing 70. Lets face it, the only
thing that is likely to deter, let alone stop, a young, relatively fit
200 pound male predator from molesting her, in the actual event, is a
firearm.
The only thing confiscatory legislation does is to return her and those
like her to a state of helplessness. You don't impede the fellow who
buys his weapons in the black market in the slightest. He does not care
that his action is felonious. He commits felonies every day. Who cares
about one more?
If the Korean shop-keepers in LA did not have guns, they would have
suffered even more looting, vandalism, and murderous assaults. An
animal in the process of rioting is not intent on listening to reason
at all. The only way to stop it is to put a hole through its head.
Well, there is another way. A look down the business end of a shotgun
_HAS_ been known to convince a potential assailant of the virtues of
civic order, without any discharge of fire being required at all ....
Don't take this as an advocation of guns. We should oppose any sort
of violence or weapon of violence. A gun has no purpose whatsoever
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
except to kill and hence is a weapon of violence.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bzzzt! Wrong!
In a skeet shoot, the only things that are 'killed' are inanimate
objects. The same thing is true at any rifle or pistol competition.
One evening back in my grad-student days, I was required to use a gun
for _DEFENSE_ one scary evening.
Total casualties: zero. Total number of shots fired: zero.
But _I_ _AM_ _STILL_ _HERE_ .. and without the use of that gun, I
might not be.
The dirtbag who was trying to force my apartment door decided that
discretion was the better part of valor, very suddenly, and left for
greener pastures. I sat down, tried to stop shaking, thought about the
incident, and thanked whatever powers protect wimpy grad students that
criminals also know they are mortal.
But there's also
such a thing as reality. America is not Japan. Japan is relatively
peaceful and safe. America is much more violent. Americans are much
more violent and aggressive than the Japanese. How is one to defend
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
oneself in face of animalistic violence? (Hand guns are banned in Japan.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Precisely.
--
Charles Roten | Hughes-STX, Incorporated |
ro...@cuba.gsfc.nasa.gov | 'Use the Source, Luke!'
7601 Ora-Glen Dr., Greenbelt, MD 20706 |
301-513-7805 (w), 301-317-0872 (h) | Obi-Wan Stallman
Mark Slagle
> In article <SLAGLE.92...@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>, sla...@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:
> # I wish all the rioters would go home and try
> # to figure out a way to make some good use out
> # of the energy from their anger and frustration.
> This assumes that the rioters were doing what they did as a political
> statement. They weren't. It's clear that the savages decided it was
> time to destroy and engage in lynchings of whites. (That's the only
> accurate description of the racially-motivated attacks that happened
> in L.A., and even here in Santa Rosa).
----
It assumes no such thing. I assume only that the rioters
are angry and frustrated. It weakly implies that they are
angry and frustrated about the verdict in the trial of the
officers who beat Mr. King, but even that is not necessary.
It seems likely that they are angry and frustrated about the
condition of their lives and the helplessness they feel about
changing them for the better. I still wish they could find
something better to do with the energy engendered by these
emotions than to trash and burn their own neighborhoods, but
I don't have a lot of hope for that. But if they were to
take half the energy that was used to lay waste to LA to
build something instead, then maybe things wouldn't be so
hopeless.
As for the racial motivation of the rioters, I would only
point out that according to the reports I read, there were
malcontents of all flavors out there looting and burning.
The white population was laying waste to central (?) LA,
and other groups were well represented elsewhere. Anger
and frustration are not the solely the province of blacks.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle PO Box 61059
ELAINE GALLEGOS
The only stores that escaped arson and looting were the Korean
ones with armed guard on the roof with rifles.
--
UUCP: ...!nusdecs!jbbs!703!ELAINE.GALLEGOS
INTERNET: ELAINE....@f703.n202.z1.uucp
Guido Marx
>Yes i do - Seeing how the judge made the final decision which moved the
>trial to Simi valley, I really don't see the this being the DA's fault. What
>was he supposed to do ? organize a sit in ? riot ? maybe loot the judge's
>office ? Here in sunny california, once the judge makes his decision, it is
>the final one. For whatever reason he might deem appropriate - the
>prosecution has nothing to do with the final decision.
How about appealing the decision ? How about making a public statement
that a fair trial wouldn't be had in Simi Valley ? After all, the entire
reason for a change of venue is to insure that an IMPARTIAL jury is
empaneled. Impartial doesn't mean one with a pre-disposition to acquit,
it means no prediliction either way. I am certainly willing to concede
that the prosecutor may have made the decision that pissing-off the judge
by fighting the change of venue might not have been worth it, I can't
say. I do think that the biggest error the prosecutor made was not calling
King himself as a witness. After seeing him at his press conference, I am
convinced that the prosecutor needed to put him on the stand just so the
jury could view him as a fellow human-being, not the drug-crazed animal
the defense was allowed to portray him as. If the jury had had some empathy
for King, I don't think that they would have been so quick to acquit.
Guido
Steve Alexander
>Do you think there would have been any difference if these three
>attackers had hit her in the head with baseball bats? On the other
>hand, the stores and businesses defended by armed guards did much
>better than the ones who weren't.
>
>--
>My opinions are my own.
On the other hand in LA, those who died mostly did so by the bullet.
Surely the safe distance allowed the wrongdoers to more easily, and
therefore more comfortably and more likely, do their wrong.
Don Baldwin
># So now every member of the LAPD is guilty too?
># And we should lynch them all?
># You guys are incredible.
>
>It would be at least understandable if all that anger had been
>directed at LAPD. That wouldn't make it right, however, because not
>every member of LAPD is a brutal thug. (I say that with some certainty,
>having had a variety of experiences with LAPD).
Hmm, I've never had an encounter with the LAPD. From what I have heard,
they have a major attitude problem, no matter what your race. I agree
that it wouldn't be fair to indiscriminately attack cops there but it
would be preferable to attacking non-cops. Also, keep in mind that all
those civilians who've been injured unnecessarily in runins with the
LAPD didn't deserve it either.
># I wish all the rioters would go home and try
># to figure out a way to make some good use out
># of the energy from their anger and frustration.
>This assumes that the rioters were doing what they did as a political
>statement. They weren't. It's clear that the savages decided it was
>time to destroy and engage in lynchings of whites. (That's the only
>accurate description of the racially-motivated attacks that happened
>in L.A., and even here in Santa Rosa).
Do we know for a fact that most people injured last week were white?
don
Mark Slagle
> Hmm, I've never had an encounter with the LAPD. From what I have heard,
> they have a major attitude problem, no matter what your race. I agree
> that it wouldn't be fair to indiscriminately attack cops there but it
> would be preferable to attacking non-cops. Also, keep in mind that all
> those civilians who've been injured unnecessarily in runins with the
> LAPD didn't deserve it either.
----
I fail to understand how attacking an innocent person is somehow
preferable or more fair just because that person is (or is not)
wearing a police uniform. Isn't beating up someone just because
of some arbitrary external characteristics how this whole thing
is supposed to have gotten started?
Mark Slagle
> How about appealing the decision ? How about making a public statement
> that a fair trial wouldn't be had in Simi Valley ? After all, the entire
> reason for a change of venue is to insure that an IMPARTIAL jury is
> empaneled. Impartial doesn't mean one with a pre-disposition to acquit,
> it means no prediliction either way. I am certainly willing to concede
> that the prosecutor may have made the decision that pissing-off the judge
> by fighting the change of venue might not have been worth it, I can't
> say.
This is an interesting legal question. I'm sure some legal eagle
will cure my ignorance if necessary, but it has been my understanding
that the defense may request a change of venue on the grounds that
the defendant would be unable to receive a fair trial in the original
jurisdiction. I am not aware that the rights of the people, as
represented by the prosecution are similarly protected. The protection
is for the benefit of the accused, not the other way around. Is that
the case? Just what can the prosecution do in these cases?
> I do think that the biggest error the prosecutor made was not calling
> King himself as a witness. After seeing him at his press conference, I am
> convinced that the prosecutor needed to put him on the stand just so the
> jury could view him as a fellow human-being, not the drug-crazed animal
> the defense was allowed to portray him as. If the jury had had some empathy
> for King, I don't think that they would have been so quick to acquit.
This is a point that has been bothering me for the past couple of
days. Given that Mr. King has demonstrated an ability to at least
appear to be a reasonable, thoughtful person for whom our sympathies
can be awakened, why would the prosecution not think it was to their
advantage to call King to the stand to give his account of the affair.
So far as I can tell, there can be only two possible reasons:
1) The prosecution is incompetent, or grossly negligent, or
2) The prosecution correctly believed that putting King on
the stand, and thereby exposing him to cross-examination
by the defense, would do more harm to the peoples case
than having him remain silent.
I am willing to entertain the possibility that number one is the case.
But what if number two is correct? That would mean that the facts
of the case would support the defense contention that the application
of force was justified. Of course the jury is specifically enjoined
from drawing any conclusions from King's silence (fifth amendment and
all), but we are not. Would his testimony under cross-examination
have confirmed the police version of the events? Has the prosecutor
made any statement about this matter? Has King?
Christopher Morton
> In article <SLAGLE.92...@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>, sla...@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:
> > >In article <1992May1.2...@igor.tamri.com>, do...@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
> # # A nightstick DOES count as deadly force. Clayton's right. I just
> # # wish the rioters were going after the LAPD, instead of other innocent
> # # people...
> #
> # ----
> # So now every member of the LAPD is guilty too?
> # And we should lynch them all?
> # You guys are incredible.
>
> It would be at least understandable if all that anger had been
> directed at LAPD. That wouldn't make it right, however, because not
> every member of LAPD is a brutal thug. (I say that with some certainty,
> having had a variety of experiences with LAPD).
Thank you for bringing out this point. I've noted it elsewhere. The VC and
the Mujahideen, generally displayed their pique with the Thieu and Amin /
Karmal / Taraki / Najibullah regimes by killing their employees, NOT by robbing
convenience and furniture stores.
> # I wish all the rioters would go home and try
> # to figure out a way to make some good use out
> # of the energy from their anger and frustration.
> #
> # Mark E. Slagle PO Box 61059
>
> This assumes that the rioters were doing what they did as a political
> statement. They weren't. It's clear that the savages decided it was
> time to destroy and engage in lynchings of whites. (That's the only
> accurate description of the racially-motivated attacks that happened
> in L.A., and even here in Santa Rosa).
A racist is a racist, a thief a thief. The race of the perpetrators is merely
incidental. This of course does nothing to lessen the need to disband, purge,
and reconstitute the LAPD, and to prosecute Gates for dereliction of duty and
if possible civil rights violations. His smarmy statements aside, HE is the
only one who won in this thing, and I'd hate to see him get away with it.
> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer My opinions, all mine!
> LAPD: strong enough to oppress, too weak to protect.
JESUS H. CHRIST Clayton!!! With the above statement, you have made up for
EVERY muddled comment you've EVER made here. Congratulations. Maybe we can
get rebuild LAPD under MAP....
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin
sla...@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>
>> Hmm, I've never had an encounter with the LAPD. From what I have heard,
>> they have a major attitude problem, no matter what your race. I agree
>> that it wouldn't be fair to indiscriminately attack cops there but it
>> would be preferable to attacking non-cops. Also, keep in mind that all
>> those civilians who've been injured unnecessarily in runins with the
>> LAPD didn't deserve it either.
>
>----
>I fail to understand how attacking an innocent person is somehow
>preferable or more fair just because that person is (or is not)
>wearing a police uniform. Isn't beating up someone just because
>of some arbitrary external characteristics how this whole thing
>is supposed to have gotten started?
For one thing, it's a little more fair than attacking a passing motorist
because the police are armed.
For another, it seems like the LAPD is more an occupying army in LA, than
a police force.
don
Ed Suranyi
>For another, it seems like the LAPD is more an occupying army in LA, than
>a police force.
First, a disclaimer: I am white, so obviously I have no experience in
how the LAPD treats minorities (which, put together, actually make up
a majority of LA's population). I certainly believe the charges blacks
have made with regard to the LAPD treating them unfairly. That being
said. . .
I lived in LA for a long time, and had a few encounters with the police.
All were strictly professional, and courteous. Most were for traffic
violations, and they were dealt with no differently than anywhere else
I've lived. The one time we had a serious involvement with police
was when my grandmother was killed by a hit-and-run driver. The police
were kind and efficient, and they soon caught the perpetrator (who was
white as well, so there was no racial character to this case).
I am NOT saying that the LAPD always acts this way, and I'm sure that
there are quite a few cases of police brutality. All I'm saying is that
many officers there are decent, and they don't brutalize everybody they
come into contact with.
Andy Freeman
>In article <1992May6.1...@adobe.com> pn...@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>Do you think there would have been any difference if these three
>>attackers had hit her in the head with baseball bats? On the other
>>hand, the stores and businesses defended by armed guards did much
>>better than the ones who weren't.
>
>Surely the safe distance allowed the wrongdoers to more easily, and
>therefore more comfortably and more likely, do their wrong.
Umm, the LAPD/army almost always kills using guns. If we exclude
those just the deaths that we know are due to direct govt-agent action
(there are other deaths that are probably by-police, but I'm not
counting them), most people killed during the riots were killed by
other means.
BTW - We also don't know which deaths are wrongful. (Presumably most
of the by govt-action deaths were legitimate, but we don't know.) We
also don't know how many deaths were avoided though gun use, whether
lethal, non-lethal, or non-shooting.
George Neville-Neil
|> For another, it seems like the LAPD is more an occupying army in LA, than
|> a police force.
|>
Interestingly enough, it looks as if the Crips and Bloods are going
to have a truce. The LAPD thinks that they are doing this to take
on the LAPD as a single force. I am amused. Does this mean
that future generations will look at the LA gangs as
the rebels ??
Later,
George
--
All of English literature is one big in joke, and a poor one at that.
Elizabeth G. Levy
>
>Umm, the LAPD/army almost always kills using guns. If we exclude
>those just the deaths that we know are due to direct govt-agent action
>(there are other deaths that are probably by-police, but I'm not
>counting them), most people killed during the riots were killed by
>other means.
Not really. I believe the LAPD and National Guard accounted for
around 8 or 9 deaths. There were at least 22 killed by gunshot
during the riots.
Andy Freeman
Yes really. There were 58 total deaths, with 30 shot, including police
action. That gives us 50 "civilian deaths" (and we don't know whether
or not any of them were justifiable), with 22 by guns. The majority
were non-gun.
Of course, it is important to consider how many lives were saved by
explaining to people that further attacks would be "expensive", not to
mention whether or not anything could have affected the wrongful
shootings. (I've heard that LA is awash in smuggled illegal goods, so
it is somewhat absurd to think that legal controls can affect access
to much of anything.)
Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892
>days. Given that Mr. King has demonstrated an ability to at least
>appear to be a reasonable, thoughtful person for whom our sympathies
>can be awakened, why would the prosecution not think it was to their
>advantage to call King to the stand to give his account of the affair.
>So far as I can tell, there can be only two possible reasons:
>
> 1) The prosecution is incompetent, or grossly negligent, or
>
> 2) The prosecution correctly believed that putting King on
> the stand, and thereby exposing him to cross-examination
> by the defense, would do more harm to the peoples case
> than having him remain silent.
>
This would not be difficult to understand, but I have heard
nothing on this subject, either way. dsc]
>I am willing to entertain the possibility that number one is the case.
>But what if number two is correct? That would mean that the facts
>of the case would support the defense contention that the application
>of force was justified. Of course the jury is specifically enjoined
>from drawing any conclusions from King's silence (fifth amendment and
>all), but we are not.
>
No. King was *NOT* on trial. The jury would be free to interpret a reluc-
tance on his part to answer questions. They were also free to interpret his
absence from the court room.
Mark Slagle
> No. King was *NOT* on trial. The jury would be free to interpret a reluc-
> tance on his part to answer questions. They were also free to interpret his
> absence from the court room.
It is my understanding that jurors are explicitly instructed to
base their verdict on the evidence presented to them during the
trial. They are specifically enjoined from basing their conclusions
on outside sources of information and on speculations about what
someone who did not testify might or might not have said had they
done so.
I realize that this injunction is unlikely to be followed in many
cases, but I believe that is the law nonetheless.
Ray Tomsick
verdict is the influence of intent. Being on my way to law school, my
Dopinion is that intent is what the prosecuter should have been trying
to prove. I admit that I didn't have time to watch the trial, so I
don't know what happened except for broadly.
It is true that the officers beat Mr. King, but what was their
motivation? Was their motivation truely racsist? Or were they in
their mind doing a job? I don't know. All I do know is that a bunch
of inner city hoods took the opportunity to ruin their home.
Sorry about the tangent, back to intent. This is a
fundamental part of any case, especially with video. Now we don't have
to ask "Excuse me Mr. Powell, did you beat Rodney King?" NOw all we
need to know is why. To coin a phrase, we know who killed cock robin
but we don't know why.
D
D
A
Richard Foy
>
>In article <1992May...@birch.cs.Virginia.EDU> (talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics), ma...@birch.cs.Virginia.EDU (Michael DeLong) writes:
>> In article <1992May1.0...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>,
>> |> afternoon) said that they had very little ability to appeal the
>> |> change in venue. The said that they protested the change of
>> |> venue to that particular county (they wanted Alameda, or somewhere
>> |> else with a similar racial mix), but were overruled.
>> |>
>>
>> What was the justification for moving it to Simi Valley?
>
>Hmm...I had heard that the prosecution moved it to Simi Valley...
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Peter Creath "When I was a boy I was told that anybody could
>pet...@moebius.cubetech.com become president; I'm beginning to believe it."
> -- Clarence Darrow
An article in the LA Times explained the process as follows if my memory
has not failed:
The defense requested a change of venue (from Los Angeles).
The trial judge denied the change.
The appelate court overturned lthe denial and gave the trial judge the
choice of Orange County, Ventura County and San Francisco/Alameda County.
The trial judge rejected Orange county because it was too conservative.
He rejected San Francisco/Alameda because the costs involved with the
distance would be too great. That left Ventura County.
Richard Foy Standard Disclaimer
Mike Marfell
> >LA by looting and arson...
>
> What an insensitive thing to say. You must be a white male. And I
> thought Stanford was a politically correct campus.
Why do you automatically think that it must be from a white male? This
comment could have come from any race..........
Just my 2 cents
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Marfell |
Intergraph Corp. APD | Space for rent, CHEAP!
m...@clipper.clipper.ingr.com | Please, no SUN Ads.
Bill Meyers
>First, let's get this straight, and I'm sure that you'll correct me if I'm
>articulating inaccurately. Gun control laws are intended to stop the most
>likely sort of fatal violence: domestic violence. In other words, the
Joe could learn a lot by attempting to distinguish:
a) the actual effects of "gun control" laws (e.g., Washington, DC);
b) language of the law (e.g., what new victimless "crimes" are created);
c) statutory intent (cf. the fine print), and whether it matches b);
d) the fantasies used to sell them to the public (he's got that right).