Rodney King dead

[Army of GOD]

King was so high on PCP that he was flying in his car at 120 mph.

[Phatscotty]

King was so high on PCP that he was flying in his car at 120 mph.

Maybe you could have asked Rodney King very nicely, with that golden angel AOG vcoice, to turn around and place his hands behind his back. If that doesn't work, kick things up to pretty please. If that still doesn't work, offer him a cherry on top. That usually works on violent criminals fresh out of prison and high on PCP and likes to drive 120 mph through residential neighborhoods. Not all the time, just most of time.

If by some off chance that still doesn't work, and you feel the need to use force, just rise above it. Tell him he can get back in his car and go home, since it really isn't worth all the hassle anyways. Then, to make sure his feelings are not hurt, offer to follow him back the his crack house to make sure he arrives safely. Don't forget to warn him not to drive 120 mph though, because then you would have to pull him over again! And there is no way he would want to go through all that!

[thegreekdog]

Nice Ron Paul links. You do know those are just random posters saying "he, we should do something about this!" I was thinking you had a Ron Paul speech on the issue, or even just some comments by Ron Paul?

In past threads random people saying "he would do something about this" especially on video and especially on video with patriotic music was enough for your purposes. Have your evidence standards changed?

And I don't give a crap about what Wiki says, Wiki is completely full of shit when it comes to certain things. I was asking you to use your own 2 eyes in the video. Rodney King was not restrained or in custody when that beating was going down.

One can barely make out anything on the video. Let's go with firsthand descriptions:

(1) A sergeant ordered four LAPD officers to subdue and handcuff Rodney King.
(2) As the LAPD officers attempted this, Rodney King physically resisted (eventually pushing all of the officers off).
(3) Rodney King tested negative for PCP. Let me type that again... Rodney King tested NEGATIVE for PCP.
(4) The sergeant fired a taser at King.

That's all pre-video.

(5) King moves towards the officers with the taser still in him.
(6) Officer Powell hits King in the head, knocking him to the ground.
(7) Powell then hits King several additional times until Officer Briseno stops Powell from swinging.
(8) When King gets to his knees, Officers Powell and Wind begin to hit King with their batons. King was hit 56 times with batons and was kicked repeatedly.

Now let's see what others had to say:

- The Los Angeles district attorney charged four of the officers with using excessive force (they were not convicted).
- President George Bush said "Viewed from outside the trial, it was hard to understand how the verdict could possibly square with the video. Those civil rights leaders with whom I met were stunned. And so was I and so was Barbara and so were my kids."
- The US Department of Justice tried and convicted two of the officers of violating King's civil rights. Some would say that his civil rights were violated. And that brings us back to Ron Paul: a champion of civil rights.

And it's okay about #3. Everybody dodges that one so far except for Mageplunka

I just want to make sure I understand since you've accused me a number of times of misconstruing your written words. I need to be clear. You appear, to me, to point out that the suspect needs to be restrained in order to be cuffed and that this may involve the use of physical force (tasers, batons, kicks). I agree with that. On the other hand, you appear to find the Rodney King incident to be palatable (although you have two conflicting statements which you've dodged again). My response is whether it is acceptable for police officers to taser, hit with batons, and kick a suspect 56 or more times until the suspect must be rushed to the hospital to receive medical treatment, the officers are indicted on criminal charges, and are convicted of civil rights violations. If the answer is no, then we can move on. If your answer is "yes" or you don't answer my question and continue to duck, bob, and weave, then we will continue with this discussion.

[Dukasaur]

Im no police officer; i dont know what the optimal method is for dealing with offenders like this. I would hazard to guess that handcuffs would be no 1 priority.

So my question: Do you think that the officers in that video were working to restrain Rodney or something closer to doling out justice for his offences?

Okay. We agree. Handcuffs are #1. So, how do you put handcuffs on someone who wont keep their hands still for you to put the cuffs on?

Just hang on with the question for a second, we are going to talk through this and find out exactly where we differ. That okay?

There were what, six cops there? Even if that only means, like, a collective iq of 113 in this particular case, you can't argue that they didn't have less violent solutions to "oh hey, this guy's squirming" than "let's turn him into a pulp."

so...................how do you put handcuffs on someone who wont keep their hands still for you to put the cuffs on?

Put another way, could you please be so kind as to state what that less violent solution is?

Back when I drove cab, I witnessed this procedure quite a few times when someone violent needed to be put down after a bar brawl. And yes, in many cases, these would be "6 foot whatever 250 lb" steroid cases pumped on adrenaline and miscellaneous drugs.

1. Two officers approach from the flanks and administer swift baton blows to the tendons at the back of the knees. Even if you're Andre the Giant, this will bring you to the ground.

2. Five officers jump on the suspect; one for each leg, one for each arm, and one for the head/neck region. If you're a trained grappler against five random people, you might be able to get out of this, but against five officers who have been trained in grappling themselves, it should be unbreakable.

3. The two officers in charge of the arms co-operate in putting handcuffs on the suspect.

4. They continue sitting on him until he tires and calms down, and then they walk him to the car.

I've seen this procedure work quickly, efficiently, and without any blood shed, even on guys who look like they crush coconuts in their hands. What seems to have happened in the King case, according to the reports, is that the cops attempted Step 2 above, and they somehow mucked it up. Then instead of regrouping and trying it again, they simply decided to beat him unconscious. At the very least, even if you take the extreme view that King was an unredeemable criminal with no rights, it was a breach of procedure. And if you take any view even slightly less extreme, then it was a violet assault.

[Phatscotty]

Im no police officer; i dont know what the optimal method is for dealing with offenders like this. I would hazard to guess that handcuffs would be no 1 priority.

So my question: Do you think that the officers in that video were working to restrain Rodney or something closer to doling out justice for his offences?

Okay. We agree. Handcuffs are #1. So, how do you put handcuffs on someone who wont keep their hands still for you to put the cuffs on?

Just hang on with the question for a second, we are going to talk through this and find out exactly where we differ. That okay?

There were what, six cops there? Even if that only means, like, a collective iq of 113 in this particular case, you can't argue that they didn't have less violent solutions to "oh hey, this guy's squirming" than "let's turn him into a pulp."

so...................how do you put handcuffs on someone who wont keep their hands still for you to put the cuffs on?

Put another way, could you please be so kind as to state what that less violent solution is?

Back when I drove cab, I witnessed this procedure quite a few times when someone violent needed to be put down after a bar brawl. And yes, in many cases, these would be "6 foot whatever 250 lb" steroid cases pumped on adrenaline and miscellaneous drugs.

1. Two officers approach from the flanks and administer swift baton blows to the tendons at the back of the knees. Even if you're Andre the Giant, this will bring you to the ground.

2. Five officers jump on the suspect; one for each leg, one for each arm, and one for the head/neck region. If you're a trained grappler against five random people, you might be able to get out of this, but against five officers who have been trained in grappling themselves, it should be unbreakable.

3. The two officers in charge of the arms co-operate in putting handcuffs on the suspect.

4. They continue sitting on him until he tires and calms down, and then they walk him to the car.

I've seen this procedure work quickly, efficiently, and without any blood shed, even on guys who look like they crush coconuts in their hands. What seems to have happened in the King case, according to the reports, is that the cops attempted Step 2 above, and they somehow mucked it up. Then instead of regrouping and trying it again, they simply decided to beat him unconscious. At the very least, even if you take the extreme view that King was an unredeemable criminal with no rights, it was a breach of procedure. And if you take any view even slightly less extreme, then it was a violet assault.

I agree with your breakdown 100%. I follow your analysis all the way to the part about instead of regrouping, they beat him unconscious. I just wanted to remind, that even a tazer did not work, which really limits the options.

I think the police should have jumped on him much earlier, using the tactics you point out and I pointed out a few posts back (very similar). But how do we know they did not already try that? Maybe they already tried it twice? Also, at the time, wasn't there an edited version of the beating, and then a few months later a longer, more telling version was released, in which we all clearly saw King charging the police officers with the tazer wires still hanging from his body. TGD disclaimer: I'm just pointing a few things out here, not arguing anything or defending anything.

[Lootifer]

But why are you pointing these things out dear PS?

Please forgive us for thinking you have an ulterior motive here...

[thegreekdog]

But why are you pointing these things out dear PS?

Please forgive us for thinking you have an ulterior motive here...

As Saxi pointed out, Phatscotty has a number of amendments and exceptions to his belief system. It's hard to follow sometimes.

[Phatscotty]

But why are you pointing these things out dear PS?

Please forgive us for thinking you have an ulterior motive here...

As Saxi pointed out, Phatscotty has a number of amendments and exceptions to his belief system. It's hard to follow sometimes.

That's just how I see it. The cops went way too far in the end, but I do not excuse Rodney King's actions that night. If he laid down on the ground and put his hands behind his back, I'm pretty sure none of this would have happened. King was responsible for bringing the police to that level in the first place, then the police went way too far.

[Lootifer]

Yes but its a matter of the cops being in a position of respect authority.

Theres always gunna be fuckwit crims doing dumb shit.

There is however a certain moral expectation placed on police.

I find it much more distasteful that our employeed protectors have an ugly side than the self same ugly side observed in a drug crazed failure.

[spurgistan]

But why are you pointing these things out dear PS?

Please forgive us for thinking you have an ulterior motive here...

As Saxi pointed out, Phatscotty has a number of amendments and exceptions to his belief system. It's hard to follow sometimes.

That's just how I see it. The cops went way too far in the end, but I do not excuse Rodney King's actions that night. If he laid down on the ground and put his hands behind his back, I'm pretty sure none of this would have happened. King was responsible for bringing the police to that level in the first place, then the police went way too far.

Highlighted the important part of that sentence. Which, in itself, is an understatement (did the police go too far with Ahmed Diallo?) but at least a nice admission that police aren't free to act any fuckin way they want when people are not in a fully cooperative manner.

[Gillipig]

"King" must be the most arrogant surname there is. Might just as well name yourself "God"!

[notyou2]

pig says a lot too

[Gillipig]

I love lamp!

Hi, thanks for stopping bye. Your contribution was noteworthy.

[PLAYER57832]

"King" must be the most arrogant surname there is. Might just as well name yourself "God"!

Yeah, becuase we all get to choose our surnames!

[PLAYER57832]

I find it much more distasteful that our employeed protectors have an ugly side than the self same ugly side observed in a drug crazed failure.

This is the key.

Also, it has to be noted that while the public actions in response (we are pissed at the police, so now we'll go burn down our neighbor's businesses) were unwarranted, the anger at the police was justified and legitimate.

I think the lesson of Rodney King is sort of a Machiavellian one... you can't piss people off so much that they get angry.. or things will erupt. I don't celebrate that, though I do acknowledge it.

I celebrate Martin Luther King's (Ghandi's) "either they treat us decently or we will ignore them/quietly impede them".

[Phatscotty]

I find it much more distasteful that our employeed protectors have an ugly side than the self same ugly side observed in a drug crazed failure.

You are right. We should only hire human beings to be our protectors who are perfect and have no ugly side, humans who do not get angry or have emotions. I can already see the protests and charges of discrimination if the departments turn away applicants who are not perfect.

At least until we can make robot cops.

When the pigs flip their cherries on you.....YOU PULL OVER! If you step on the gas instead and endanger the lives of every person who happens to be in your path, you will be in a world of hurt.

[jonesthecurl]

The police are supposed to enforce the rules. Not break them.

[Phatscotty]

The police are supposed to enforce the rules. Not break them.

Right. Yet the system is not 100% perfect. Humans are not perfect.

When Rodney King forced the police to chase him at high speeds, it get's the police's adrenaline going, and when someone flees in the way King fled, the police have to suspect the criminal might have a gun, or has some heavy warrants out for their arrest, or most likely refuses to go back to prison NO MATTER WHAT! That is to say the police need to prepare for the possibility this might be a situation where the felon is going down in a blaze of glory, and they need to prepare mentally for what they might have to deal with when the felon finally ceases to flee.

Oh but, when the felon stops and it's time to get out of the car, the police are supposed to automatically calm down and pretend like nothing just happened, and treat King like he failed to use a blinker at a turn signal. This is not meant to justify the police in going way too far, I just want to address the unrealistic expectation a lot of people seem to possess when it comes to the grimy underbelly of criminal society and the very real world of applied force and deadly/risky situations.

If King had pulled over, I think it's safe to say none of this would have happened. Rodney King is the one who started all this, and that seems to be overlooked most of the time. He should have just pulled over, like the law requires.

I have a hard time feeling mercy for a person or defending someone who doesn't give a F about anybody but themselves, and refuses to take responsibility for their actions or face up to their past crimes. Instead they endanger everyone else who happens to be unlucky enough to be coming home from a double shift at work and is just picking up their kid's and and happens to be driving on the same road that King was driving 120mph on. I have no problem in saying the police went too far, but people need to try to put themselves in the cops shoes as well.

It seems like people expect the best of both worlds when it comes to the police. They want the police to hurry up and get to their house and expect police to put their safety and their life and their families at risk when a burglar breaks in their home, but then they expect police to let people spit in their face and let some of the worst amongst us risk the lives of some of the best amongst us and we expect them to blow it off and not get frustrated and act perfectly.

I'm not saying they shoulda did what they did, but....

[PLAYER57832]

This is pertinent:
http://www.prisonexp.org/

[Gillipig]

"King" must be the most arrogant surname there is. Might just as well name yourself "God"!

Yeah, becuase we all get to choose our surnames!

Someone took that surname for himself otherwise his ancestors wouldn't wear it. Actually not just someone, a lot of people has chosen that as surname. And I'm sure there are people in our age who legally change their surname to "King" because they have such a huge inferiority complex.

[macbone]

Pig, man, what?

One of the most common Chinese surnames is Wang, which translates as King. It's the most common surname in northern China, pretty much the equivalent of English's Smith or Jones.

A good friend of mine's last name is King. I dunno who first chose it, but his ancestors probably brought it along when they left England.

In ancient Ireland, there was a king under every other tree. It's an incredibly common family name.

[spurgistan]

"King" must be the most arrogant surname there is. Might just as well name yourself "God"!

Yeah, becuase we all get to choose our surnames!

Someone took that surname for himself otherwise his ancestors wouldn't wear it. Actually not just someone, a lot of people has chosen that as surname. And I'm sure there are people in our age who legally change their surname to "King" because they have such a huge inferiority complex.

Ermm, given Rodney King's likely family history, it's probable that his antecedents were assigned that surname by their owner.

[2dimes]

I typed out a couple of attempts to say that but couldn't figure out a wording that was not offensive.

[Gillipig]

"King" must be the most arrogant surname there is. Might just as well name yourself "God"!

Yeah, becuase we all get to choose our surnames!

Someone took that surname for himself otherwise his ancestors wouldn't wear it. Actually not just someone, a lot of people has chosen that as surname. And I'm sure there are people in our age who legally change their surname to "King" because they have such a huge inferiority complex.

Ermm, given Rodney King's likely family history, it's probable that his antecedents were assigned that surname by their owner.

Doesn't matter much. My point still stands. People have and still do chose "King" as their surname! I don't care much if rodney's ancestors chose it themselevs or if it was given. But who'd name their slave "King"?? It's probably self taken.

[Symmetry]

"King" must be the most arrogant surname there is. Might just as well name yourself "God"!

Yeah, becuase we all get to choose our surnames!

Someone took that surname for himself otherwise his ancestors wouldn't wear it. Actually not just someone, a lot of people has chosen that as surname. And I'm sure there are people in our age who legally change their surname to "King" because they have such a huge inferiority complex.

Ermm, given Rodney King's likely family history, it's probable that his antecedents were assigned that surname by their owner.

Doesn't matter much. My point still stands. People have and still do chose "King" as their surname! I don't care much if rodney's ancestors chose it themselevs or if it was given. But who'd name their slave "King"?? It's probably self taken.

An interesting way to mark the occasion of Rodney King's death, Gillipig. I guess I can understand those who find him a major figure in history, and I can sort of understand those who would like to see him forgotten. I don't really get the impulse to make him out to be a monster though.

What pushed you to make that comment?