Rodney King Found Dead

Ellis Dee

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

I hate goody good people.

The man was scum.

He deserved to get treated like scum.

And what do you call four police officers who savagely beat an almost defenceless citizen almost to death? I call them cowardly criminals. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I know you may find it hard to get your head around this, but no one - not even those who are less than perfect - deserve to be treated like scum, least of all by persons who have sworn an oath to uphold the law, not commit a violent crime. :)

Randy Anders

franklyon wrote: »

Why should he be ashamed? The guy was a thug, he got what de deserved, he resisted arrest initially, kicking one officer in the chest, no surprise that he got a few kicks as sometimes thats all thugs like him understand.

As someone else said too many PC bleeding heart liberals here.

Has nothing to do with bleeding heart liberals. There has to a standard of law enforcement, cops cannot feel they have the right to kick and baton someone to within an inch of their life. Nobody is claiming King was a saint, but law enforcemnt officials have to adhere to procedure. Beating someone on the ground certainly isn't in the procedure manual. If I was to break as many rules in my job, as those cops did that night, I'd be fired on the spot

The_Kew_Tour

Fair enough then. You people entitled to your opinion like I am.

We will agree to disagree then.

mirekb

franklyon wrote: »

As someone else said too many PC bleeding heart liberals here.

If you read the posts it is not about whether someone somewhere should have given him a few punches, it is about the morality surrounding the police being the ones to give him a few punches.

The police are hired to be upholders of the law. If you heard of an officer making a few bob on the side selling stolen goods, or dealing drugs, you wouldn't be too impressed. By the same rationale it's not ok for them to be beating people up.

Nodin

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Fair enough then. You people entitled to your opinion like I am.

We will agree to disagree then.

A source for your "ambush" story.....?

Nodin

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Fair enough then. You people entitled to your opinion like I am.

We will agree to disagree then.

You stating that he was leading them into an ambush by others isn't an "opinion", it's a declaration of a supposed fact. Evidently you made that one up.

Delancey

King was a criminal well before his ' beating ' and remained one therafter , the brief few seconds of the video do not give the full story , the video was actually longer but the full version is rarely shown and of course the video never showed Kings violent behaviour that night.

Folks seeing a video get worked up but it showed just one ( limited )perspective on a serious incident.

mikemac1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Blue_(film)

Very good film

It's very tense, the trial is always in the background, you get updates from the radio stations as the police are working through their shifts
City extremly quiet but you feel something is about to kick off.

And everyone waiting for the verdict and wondering what the reaction is going to be

Offtopic, just a good film

It's not about the riots, just they are part of the background

Nodin

Delancey wrote: »

King was a criminal well before his ' beating ' and remained one therafter , the brief few seconds of the video do not give the full story , the video was actually longer but the full version is rarely shown and of course the video never showed Kings violent behaviour that night.

Bollocks.

Are you saying that because somebody has a criminal record the police are enititled to beat them to a pulp?

Delancey wrote: »

Below is a link to a famous WW2 photo and it apparently shows a German soldier shooting a mother and child , that is until you see the uncropped version of the same photograph - this is a good example why judges generally do not accept uncorroborated video evidence.

Folks seeing a video get worked up but it showed just one ( limited )perspective on a serious incident.

http://www.codoh.com/incon/daspiktur.html[/QUOTE]
.

You're defending a man being beaten to a pulp by linking to a holocaust denial site? Classy.....really, really classy. The community wherever you serve must be delighted to have you.

Delancey

Nodin , thanks for alerting me to the background of that site - I was not aware of it and have now deleted that link .
The dangers of Googling....

MagicMarker

Delancey wrote: »

King was a criminal well before his ' beating ' and remained one therafter , the brief few seconds of the video do not give the full story , the video was actually longer but the full version is rarely shown and of course the video never showed Kings violent behaviour that night.

Folks seeing a video get worked up but it showed just one ( limited )perspective on a serious incident.

Please enlighten us as to why it's perfectly acceptable for a group of police officers to beat the living shít out of someone?

mirekb

MagicMarker wrote: »

Please enlighten us as to why it's perfectly acceptable for a group of police officers to beat the living shít out of someone?

He can't.

VEN

if this person broke in to your home tonight, had a knife or gun, threatened you with it then you somehow managed to apprehend them, what would you do? i know myself i'd give that person a severe beating or perhaps shooting if it got that far in order to save myself from yes 'scum'.

MagicMarker

VEN wrote: »

if this person broke in to your home tonight, had a knife or gun, threatened you with it then you somehow managed to apprehend them, what would you do? i know myself i'd give that person a severe beating or perhaps shooting if it got that far in order to save myself from yes 'scum'.

A nice story, thanks for sharing. WTF has that got to do with anything?

mirekb

VEN wrote: »

if this person broke in to your home tonight, had a knife or gun, threatened you with it then you somehow managed to apprehend them, what would you do? i know myself i'd give that person a severe beating or perhaps shooting if it got that far in order to save myself from yes 'scum'.

Are you a police officer? If so would you be on duty in this scenario with some of your other police officer buddies with you?

Delancey

Its worth bearing in mind that a jury considered ALL the evidence in this case and not just a few seconds of poor quality video footage and they decided to acquit the police involved.
The video is just a fraction of the full story.

speedboatchase

MagicMarker wrote: »

Please enlighten us as to why it's perfectly acceptable for a group of police officers to beat the living shít out of someone?

They used excessive force but it was not superfluous, he had attacked the officers while resisting arrest continuously and had gotten up on two occasions, first after baton shots and second after being tased. He needed to be subdued and restrained because he had broken the law, no? And that's what eventually happened, despite his incredible strength on the night.

Also, the final charge - which I agree is excessive (56 shots) - was clearly a last resort and was ordered as such. They had to overpower him because he had broken many laws that night.

MagicMarker

speedboatchase wrote: »

They used excessive force but it was not superfluous.

Excessive and superflous mean the same thing.

mirekb

Delancey wrote: »

Its worth bearing in mind that a jury considered ALL the evidence in this case and not just a few seconds of poor quality video footage and they decided to acquit the police involved.
The video is just a fraction of the full story.

This is true, but it doesn't mean the police officers were right, just that they were excused because of extreme provocation.

speedboatchase

MagicMarker wrote: »

Excessive and superflous mean the same thing.

Not necessarily. Superfluous means unnecessary while excessive means more than is necessary - excessive is more suited if you're talking in multiples.

Anyway I'll rephrase. Looking at it from an outsider's perspective, 56 shots seems excessive. However to the officers who had watched the guy get up twice following attempts to subdue him, I'm sure they did not feel their shots superfluous - they were continuing the beating until they felt he could not charge them again.

MagicMarker

speedboatchase wrote: »

Not necessarily. Superfluous means unnecessary while excessive means more than is necessary - excessive is more suited if you're talking in multiples.

Anyway I'll rephrase. Looking at it from an outsider's perspective, 56 shots seems excessive. However to the officers who had watched the guy get up twice following attempts to subdue him, I'm sure they did not feel their shots superfluous - they were continuing the beating until they felt he could not charge them again.

I have to assume you've never seen the video, you know, the one of the man rolling around on the ground with cops standing around him beating him with batons?

Semantics aside, anyone who thinks it was not superflous is nuts imo.

Delancey

Delancey wrote: »

Its worth bearing in mind that a jury considered ALL the evidence in this case and not just a few seconds of poor quality video footage and they decided to acquit the police involved.
The video is just a fraction of the full story.

The second trial two of the offIcers were convicted they must of seen ALL the evidence too !

arse..biscuits

I wish the Gardai would baton the scum over here

Nodin

Delancey wrote: »

Its worth bearing in mind that a jury considered ALL the evidence in this case and not just a few seconds of poor quality video footage and they decided to acquit the police involved.
The video is just a fraction of the full story.

10 minutes plus of clear footage.

You've yet to explain

King was a criminal well before his ' beating ' and remained one therafter

mikemac1

It's in the Guardian article Nodin

Before:

The son of a violent, alcoholic father, King drank too much from a young age and had been jailed for threatening a shopkeeper with an iron bar. On the night of the beating, he was drunk at the wheel of his car and speeding.

After:

his drinking grew worse, he was convicted of spousal abuse

Ellis Dee

arse..biscuits wrote: »

I wish the Gardai would baton the scum over here

Be careful what you wish for. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Would you also like them to be free to decide, without due process of law, a free and fair trial or any of that namby-pamby liberal stuff, who was scum and deserved to be beaten to a pulp?:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Would you trust them to get it right every time?

Or, have you given any thought to the possibility that they might get it wrong just once ---

And the person they beat the shit out of is you?:eek::eek:

admiralofthefleet

see what happens when you have michael barrymore over

Nodin

Just for a bit of background on what went on......

Based on published reports and public documents . . . it appears that three of the four indicted officers had been named in prior complaints for excessive force.
Computer, Radio Transmissions
Computer and radio messages transmitted among officers immediately after the beating raised additional concerns that the King beating was part of a larger pattern of police abuse. Shortly before the King beating, Powell's and Wind's patrol unit transmitted the computer message that an earlier domestic dispute between an African-American couple was "right out of 'Gorillas in the Mist'," a reference to a motion picture about the study of gorillas in Africa.


The initial report of the beating came at 12:56 a.m., when Koon's unit reported to the watch commander's desk at Foothill Station: "You just had a big-time use of force. . . . Tased and beat the suspect of CHP pursuit, big time."

The Rodney King beating gave immediate rise to myriad questions about the Los Angeles Police Department. Concerns were voiced about the openness of the officers' conduct; the presence of a sergeant who failed to control and indeed directed the violence; the puzzling convergence of so many officers at the end-of-pursuit location after the Code 4 broadcast that no assistance was needed; the number of officers who stood by during the beating and failed to report it afterwards; and the radio comments and computer transmissions before and after the incident that suggested a possible racial motivation and a ready acceptance of excessive force as "basic stuff" by LAPD officers.

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-07-10/news/mn-1962_1_lapd-officers-excessive-force-officers-laurence-m-powell

Powell and Winds unit transmitted the word "oops" at 1.12 AM to foot patrol officers working the Sunland Tujunga area of Foothill division who were not at the scene of the beating. The following exchange then occurred during the next five minutes -

"oops what?"

(powell/wind) I haven't beaten anyone this bad in a long time"

"Oh not again, I thought you agreed to chill out for a while. What did he do?"

"I think he was dusted....many broken bones later after the pursuit"

(my bold)
http://www.parc.info/client_files/Special%20Reports/1%20-%20Chistopher%20Commision.pdf

Nodin

mikemac1 wrote: »

It's in the Guardian article Nodin

Before:

After:

Yer man seems to think that justifies him getting beaten to a pulp, hence the question.

mirekb

Nodin wrote: »

Just for a bit of background on what went on......

Jesus, it's not even heat of the moment stuff

arse..biscuits

Ellis Dee wrote: »

arse..biscuits wrote: »

I wish the Gardai would baton the scum over here

Be careful what you wish for. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Would you also like them to be free to decide, without due process of law, a free and fair trial or any of that namby-pamby liberal stuff, who was scum and deserved to be beaten to a pulp?:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Would you trust them to get it right every time?

Or, have you given any thought to the possibility that they might get it wrong just once ---

And the person they beat the shit out of is you?:eek::eek:

,,z,

K-9

Posts there is more to King than meets the eye.

Posts fecking Guards, look at the May Day riots, Barron etc. in another!

You don't have to look too far for the ramifications of a police forces doling out justice, it happened over the border and it doesn't work out very well!

bnt

Yeesh. Wish I hadn't started this thread, even though someone would have done it anyway.

Fenian Army

Delancey is hardly a member of the PSNI is he?

With attitudes like his towards police brutality I'm sure he fits in great with the old RUC heads who are still around

conor.hogan.2

bnt wrote: »

Yeesh. Wish I hadn't started this thread, even though someone would have done it anyway.

Can't we all just get along? RIP

meoklmrk91

If this was four normal run of the mill fellas against 1 police officer and they gave him the hiding the Rodney King got people would be calling for their heads. Despite what anyone does, to beat someone like that is just appalling and only makes people mistrust law enforcement even more, it is a pointless exercise of power and a lack of discipline, if that video was never recorded you can almost guarantee that Rodney King would have never even gotten his case brought before a jury.

While I have a respect for law enforcement as I have never had a run in, I know many a crooked cop, from those who beat young lads brought in for drunk and disorderly to a pulp and say they found them that way, to those that covered up some unspeakable things. The older I get the less respect I have for the Gardai.

VEN

MagicMarker wrote: »

A nice story, thanks for sharing. WTF has that got to do with anything?

they committed a crime and gave as good as they got, thats wtf its got to do with it. it may have only been one police officer, he'd still have got a beating for threatening and endangering their life.

VEN

speedboatchase wrote: »

They used excessive force but it was not superfluous, he had attacked the officers while resisting arrest continuously and had gotten up on two occasions, first after baton shots and second after being tased. He needed to be subdued and restrained because he had broken the law, no? And that's what eventually happened, despite his incredible strength on the night.

Also, the final charge - which I agree is excessive (56 shots) - was clearly a last resort and was ordered as such. They had to overpower him because he had broken many laws that night.

my thoughts exactly. he was off his rocker.

Nodin

VEN wrote: »

they committed a crime and gave as good as they got, thats wtf its got to do with it. it may have only been one police officer, he'd still have got a beating for threatening and endangering their life.

....thats a law now, is it?

VEN

Nodin wrote: »

....thats a law now, is it?

yes, my law. threaten and endanger my life with death - you get as good as you give. self defence and all that. in fact its now law to do that in your own home. ok we can get into a debate on how excessive that force may be, but how can one predict the type of force that the criminal may use, if any.

Dave!

Delancey wrote: »

King was a criminal well before his ' beating ' and remained one therafter , the brief few seconds of the video do not give the full story , the video was actually longer but the full version is rarely shown and of course the video never showed Kings violent behaviour that night.

Folks seeing a video get worked up but it showed just one ( limited )perspective on a serious incident.

Well go ahead and enlighten us as to what other actions he committed that night that would justify 4 police officers beating him with nightsticks. Bearing in mind that even if he attacked them first, that would not give them licence to beat him the way they did - clearly just teaching him a lesson.

Delancey wrote: »

Its worth bearing in mind that a jury considered ALL the evidence in this case and not just a few seconds of poor quality video footage and they decided to acquit the police involved.
The video is just a fraction of the full story.

And OJ Simpsons got off scot-free too. Wouldn't be the first miscarriage of justice in legal history.

hooradiation

VEN wrote: »

yes, my law. .

hahahah

oh, you.

Nodin

VEN wrote: »

yes, my law. threaten and endanger my life with death - you get as good as you give. self defence and all that. in fact its now law to do that in your own home. ok we can get into a debate on how excessive that force may be, but how can one predict the type of force that the criminal may use, if any.

...whats that to do with Rodney King?

VEN

Nodin wrote: »

...whats that to do with Rodney King?

who?

mikom

VEN wrote: »

yes, my law. threaten and endanger my life with death - you get as good as you give. self defence and all that. in fact its now law to do that in your own home. ok we can get into a debate on how excessive that force may be, but how can one predict the type of force that the criminal may use, if any.

Rodney Kings reply to your post

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/200/420/BRTky.jpg

Dyr

MagicMarker wrote: »

Please enlighten us as to why it's perfectly acceptable for a group of police officers to beat the living shít out of someone?

Because they are mandated to do so under certain circumstances? They don't give em nightsticks so they can give directions with them.

Kev_2012

The point is... if Dan was walking across the street that night and Rodney King plowed into him -

Nodin

VEN wrote: »

who?

O Very witty. What a wit you are Sir.

Dyr

mikemac1 wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Blue_(film)

Very good film

It's very tense, the trial is always in the background, you get updates from the radio stations as the police are working through their shifts
City extremly quiet but you feel something is about to kick off.

And everyone waiting for the verdict and wondering what the reaction is going to be

Offtopic, just a good film

It's not about the riots, just they are part of the background

It's a bloody awful film

MagicMarker

Bambi wrote: »

Because they are mandated to do so under certain circumstances? They don't give em nightsticks so they can give directions with them.

Under what circumstances are they mandated to beat the ****e out of someone who's lying defenselessly on the ground?