| Revision as of 06:48, 26 November 2006 edit24.99.142.117 (talk) →Neutrality← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:31, 23 August 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,734 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Rodney King/Archive 2) (bot |
| (525 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{WikiProject California}} |
|
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
|
{{On this day|date1=2009-04-29|oldid1=286836816|date2=2010-03-03|oldid2=347407003|date3=2012-03-03|oldid3=479921414|date4=2018-03-03|oldid4=828459134|date5=2021-03-03|oldid5=1010076621|date6=2024-03-03|oldid6=1211564524}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|living=no|listas=King, Rodney|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject African diaspora|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject California|importance=Low|socal=y|la=y}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|May 31 2020}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=|importance=}} |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|counter = 2 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Rodney King/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Likely typo reverses the intended meaning? == |
|
{{expansion}} |
|
|
==General Comments== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the section "Aftermath": |
|
Selected entry on ] |
|
|
---------- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Blood and urine samples were taken from King five hours after his arrest. The ] (BAC) from King's test samples was ''0.075%'', indicating he would not have been legally intoxicated under California law, BAC legal limit ''0.08%'', at the time of his arrest." |
|
This article fails to mention the ] before which the ] officers were tried. A ](s)/](s) would be nice.] 22:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As it stands, it's nonsense, because a blood alcohol content of 0.075% five hours '''after''' arrest would mean a blood alcohol content far over 0.08% '''at the time of''' arrest. I can't correct this because I don't know whether it's the "five hours" that is wrong, or the "not" in "not have been intoxicated", or the numbers. Someone who has this info please fix. ] (]) 14:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
Isnt this guy dead? I believe he got killed in a gang shootout over cocaine. |
|
|
] 14:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: {{u|Longitude2}}: ] introducing the "not" was made on November 10, 2022, with the editor apparently acting in good faith but missing this implication. I checked the source cited earlier in the sentence, which says: "Blood and urine samples taken from King five hours after his arrest showed that his blood-alcohol level was 0.075%, indicating that at the time of his arrest, he was over the level (0.08%) at which one can be presumed intoxicated under California law." Accordingly, I removed the "not." <span style="font-weight:bold">]]</span> 07:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
--- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== archive == |
|
don't want to tread on any sensitivities here, not being from the US or having any real understanding of US domestic issues, but THE big thing that made the whole matter major news over here was that the officers who we saw brutally assualting King on TV were (a) not charged to begin with, then (b) aquitted by an ''all-white jury''. Maybe there are local matters that didn't make it onto our news broadcasts, but the present entry reads like a whitewash. Err .. no pun intended. ] 07:54 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was not an all-white jury. A Latino and an Asian American both were on the jury. True, no other Blacks made the jury. Legally, yes, this is atrocious but ''res judicata''. A laymen cannot say the law was unjust from a review of the outside circumstances alone. To make such a claim, you would have had to witness the entire adjudication process. Morally, the police officers were excessively abusive. But also, he got a taste of his own medicine for the several violent beatings of his wife. Funny how the article fails to mention, in the list of strenuous social conditions between the police and the African American community, the on-going problem of gang violence and attacks on police officers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Whitewash? This is stub that I've been assembling from bits and pieces I've been finding while doing the day page updates. In the US, however, this was a ''very'' controversial topic with the great majority of white thinking the original verdict was just and the great majority of blacks thinking it was unjust. I've tried to reflect both sides in the meager amount of text written so far. --] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{u|Wafflewombat}}, sorry if I'm misunderstanding - why do we ] the archive bot? ] (]) 21:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Absolutely, there is a significantly high number of African-Americans within the US, such that it is rather strange how frequently all white juries will decide issues involving African-Americans. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:There is very little activity on the talk page, so there's no need to automatically archive. I would say it's better to let the content build up naturally and then manually archive when it feels right to do so, instead of when the bot is programmed to do so. But if you disagree and want to restore the bot, that is 100% okay. It's not very important 🙂 ] (]) 21:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Nationwide, blacks make up around 12% of the population of the United States. Regionally, populations can vary widely. For the sake of completeness, approximate year 2000 census figures are white=72%, black=12%, hispanic=12%, asian=4%, native=1%. -] |
|
|
|
::Yeah, I feel like if a bot can do it, why should we do it manually. I don't think removing these bots is a good thing. I think if your only objection is that it can be done manually, you should either stop or get consensus that it's a good idea. ] (]) 21:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::No problem. In the future I'll seek consensus about this type of edit. ] (]) 22:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
PS to my post above: It wasn't just African-Americans who were shocked. It was the talk of white, middle-class Australia too. They played the tapes over and over. I remember being sickened by the beating and profoundly shocked by the verdict. I'm not aware of knowing anyone over here who didn't feel the same way, and I guess that applies to people in many other countries too. (I'm not going to comment on your point, Susan, as I'm not qualifed to do so from 10,000 miles away. But I hear what you are saying.) ] |
|
|
|
|
|
I believe ] was tried with an all-white jury. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
If I remember right, the first King jury wasn't all white - there was one hispanic. But that is a minor point. --mav |
|
|
|
|
|
:The Rodney King jury was made up of 10 whites, 1 hispanic, and 1 asian. Ventura county in 1990, from which the jury pool was drawn, was roughly 65% white, 2% black, 25% hispanic, and 5% asian. A "perfect" jury drawn from this county would have had 8 whites, 3 hispanics, and 1 asian. Things may not be as simple as we wish. -] |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I know what you mean BFB. I've just been refreshing my memory with a little reading on the case, and ... yes ... there are lots of complexities. I'm pretty much done with this entry. I just wanted to get the main fact out onto the page. I'm sure that others more familiar with it than I am will tidy up and get the details exactly right. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I'll take my courage in both hands and insert it myself. I guess I have the advantage that I am 10,000 miles away and rather detached from the argument and thus a NPOV is easier for me, and the disadvantage that I'm 10,000 miles away and don't know anything much about it, other than the fact that I saw a black guy lying on the ground getting the living sh*t kicked out of him by three or four policemen and that (for reasons I don't understand) they were found "not guilty" by an all-white jury in a middle-class town a long way away from where the crime occurred. |
|
|
|
|
|
(And yes, I know what you mean about starting a stub and getting flack because of stuff you haven't got around to mentioning yet. I sympathise.) ] |
|
|
|
|
|
Rodney King was driving 80 mph and swerving violently about on a frequented road with a speed limit of 50. After being pulled over, high on PCP, King lunged at one of the police officers (conveniently not shown on the media, but a common fact known by anyone who bothered to find out what happened in the court room). The officers repeatedly told King to get down after subduing him, but he made repeated efforts to get up and attempt to attack the policemen again. But, thats not the way that the media wanted to spin it. Whats King been up to since then? Although the policemen got off, King was given 4 million dollars in a civil court. He has also been arrested half a dozen times since then, for various offenses such as: possession of cocaine, exposing himself in public, beating his girlfriend (multiple times), and most recently, driving 100 mph on a road before veering off and crashing into house (which was on the news a few months ago). (anon) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I know that. All except for the most recent offence, anyway. I'm not in the habit of posting without doing some research beforehand. None of that, however, is relevant to what happened immediately after the arrest. You and I may think that King is a nasty bit of work and like to see him safely locked away out of the community, but that is not the point. The law exists to punish people only after they have been given a fair trial, and even then it does not descend to savage beatings. Not in civilised countries, at any rate. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Except, the beating he received was not a "summary punishment", as you seem to (incorrectly) think. Rather, it was simply the police trying to defend themselves from a suspect whom they were simply attempting to arrest so he COULD be properly tried that chose to attack them, and was in such a state that more typical methods of defense and subduing were ineffective. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Furthermore, for some acts, savage beatings and torture followed by slow death as the sentence meted out after a proper conviction ARE indeed just and civilized. A punishment is only cruel if it is undeserved. ] 18:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I am reluctant to touch the article, given its highly controversial nature, but I thought it would be pertinent for it to touch more on the nature of video evidence. The TV generation seems to think that anything seen in video is sacrosanct, but the courts quitely rightly regard video evidence as possibly dangerously misleading. This case is the now classic example; millions of people around the world (including thousands of LA rioters) think they know what happened that night because they've "seen the tape", when in fact they only saw a very brief edit of it. By most accounts, the key factor in the first acquital was not racism, but the jurors' shock at seeing the full tape and realising how much the network coverage had misled them. (Roger) 15:36, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
Broken link moved here from article: |
|
|
* ] 09:27, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
I certainly didn't. Thanks for catching that; I have no idea how it happened. Yours, ] 02:22, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
There are many aspects to what happened and how the courts and police handled things. The current article seems strongly biased toward the white / police perspective. As a white adult in the U.S. at the time of the beating, media reports and subsequent trials, I have to say that details such as the police failing to take Mr. King directly to the hospital after the arrest should be included (showing off Mr. King at the police station), as should their covering up this fact by falsifying their report afterwards. These details and more were explored in the second trial, which included new FBI interviews, police record investigations and advanced video analysis. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 12 Sept 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think this article is biased at all. If anything it goes straight down the middle. The fact the guy was a multiple felon, attacked the officers, etc, is important. The article seems to quote the facts which is the point of an encyclopedia. People forget that more facts came out later and they tended to justify the police officers more than the initial typical knee-jerk "blame whitey" "no justice no mf'ing peace" type rubbish. |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
"Three of the men charged were non-Hispanic whites, and one was Hispanic."<br/>Plain Hispanic or Hispanic white? |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
This is Article isnt biased. If anything it still shows King as a "victim" in some of its verbiage (Rodney King was repeatedly beaten...), which is not the case. |
|
|
|
|
|
== NPOV tag removed? == |
|
|
|
|
|
An anon removed the NPOV tag on the article. . This does appear to me to be removing POV from the article. POV is probably not the real problem here, however. "Put a buffalo down" is hardly encyclopedic tone, for example, and the article is ]. Instead of replacing the POV tag, I am going to tag the article as needing attention. Specifically, someone familiar with this topic needs to reference its facts. A list of website in an "external links" section is not useful, as demonstrated by an anon changing the number of times King was hit. Without inline citations, a reader has no way of knowing which of the two numbers is correct without having to follow the external links. ] 22:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=="get along"== |
|
|
I remember this as clearly as if it were yesterday. King said "Can we get along here? Can we all get along?" He did ''not'' say "Can't we all just get along?" He was not some whining idealist, he was scared out of his wits. Let's stick to what he actually said, please. ] 09:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Rodney King's death == |
|
|
Umm... it says here that Rodney King died on April 29th 1992. Isn't that the day that the verdict was announced and LA riots started? I thought he had a civil trial afterwards. I googled around a bit and couldn't find any reference to the death of Rodney King (except some people think that he was beaten to death by the police when the video was recorded). Anyway I am not at all an expert on this, but I think things such as the death of someone as culturally important as Rodney King should be fact checked very carefully.--] 07:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Alleged use of 'PCP' == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article alleges that Rodney King was on PCP even if it goes on to say that tests for PCP came up negative. The article itself refutes the claim. Also the speed King was driving at should be alleged, unless it was proven also. I find the article largely states the point of view of the police report as fact, even if the police were defendants in the issue. That, I think, is wrong. Also this article does little to cite its sources, eg. 'alleged by whom?' |
|
|
:He was high on printed circuit boards? |
|
|
::I think an easy edit for these kinds of statements is just to add 'allegedly' before the claims. See Wiki Policy pages ] and ] for related policy info. ] 18:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== PCP and TASER useage == |
|
|
|
|
|
Ive edited the TASER comment....PCP, or any other drugs, have no impact on the performance of the TASER enegy weapon. The TASER, especially thr older units, are notoriously unreliable with a successful deployment rate (ie shooting the darts and incapaciating subject) sometimes around the 20% mark, requiring multiple TASERs to be used if one were to increase the odds. |
|
|
] 01:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Cleanup and Conflict tags== |
|
|
I added tags for cleanup on this page and resolution of conflict because there are spelling errors and the structure of some of the paragraphs doesn't make sense (I will work on cleaning this up if I get time) and because there are contractictory, and occasionaly POV statements that need to be worked out by editors. Here's an example paragraph which shows several of these issues, namely in the first sentence arguing that the police were abusing police power, in the second that they used approved tactics and in the third that that these tactics are similar to those used in repressive countiries (possibly a valid point but not relevant in my opinion). Note how using however twice in the paragraph self-contradicts undermining the article's credibility: |
|
|
|
|
|
"However, the videotape clearly shows that King was putting up little or no resistance against the attacks by the policemen, and for most of the incident lay on the floor, shielding himself. However, most police experts agree that the officers were folllowing their training, and standard police practices, by striking King in his legs and arms, which is very unlikely to cause serious injury, and is known as pain compliances techniques. The officers can been seen very clearly on the tape, striking King a few times, then giving him verbal commands, and repeating this process until compliance is achieved, which is a standard and taught police technique in countries such as China and Turkey, where police brutality is widespread." ] 14:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Also the article mentions that hew as repeatedly beaten over the head at the beginning but then goes on to say that the police hit him in the arms and legs which is approved police procedure. ] 21:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: The problem with this article is that it's completely focused on THAT incident, and is not really about Rodney King, which is the title. I think it needs to be rewritten with not so much emphasis on THAT incident and more about his background and other stuff. The particular incident that it describes can be described in detail in the ] article (and linked to from here), this isn't the place for it. ] 21:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Very true. There is almost no information about King in the actual article. It mentioned nothing about his economic or criminal background. Also, the article's discussion of the trial is lacking. Terry White, the prosecutor, goes unmentioned as does basically the whole trial. ] 07:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Agree that the article focuses too much on the incident (which is discussed elsewhere) and not enough on the person. However, focusing on the problems with internal conflicts, I've just tried to resolve some of these. The way parts of this article were written and the sheer number of conflicting opinions fighting for space actually made my brain numb. Seeing as I've lost cognitive abilities for the moment, could someone point out what conflicting statements are left? I'd like to try to clean them up so we can lose the conflict tag. Thx. --] 12:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I removed the conflict tag which I had added when it seemed like sections of the article were arguing whether the arresting officers were following police procedure, etc. The internal conflicts I saw earlier have been cleaned up--thanks to whoever contributed. ] 01:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Arrest followed standard procedure?== |
|
|
I think the claim that the officers followed standard procedure needs strong evidence because the officers were indicted for using excessive force. Unless we want to make the claim that the court and jury overstepped their bounds in indicting the officer (a claim that has no place in an encylopedia article) I don't see how this statement can be supported. ] 17:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It is a factual statement to say that the officers claimed that their actions followed police procedure. However, it is debatable whether striking a person repeatedly in the head, resulting in skull fractures, would fall under the category of standard police procedure. Therefore, indicating that the officers argued that they were following police procedure is more of an NPOV statement and is preferable here. --] 02:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
you are both wrong as are most on this issue. the officers were not charged with using excessive force. they were charged with using force likely to cause death. the police testified on the stand that everything they did that night was in full compliance with the LAPD's use of force policy. sgt. stacy coon went on national tv and told the world this. he also speaks of it in his book. nobody ever stepped forward to discredit him. |
|
|
|
|
|
as far as striking King in the head goes, he was never struck in the head on accident or intentionally. there is no videotape evidence of that whatsoever. the swelling on his face was from when he hit the ground after being struck with the PR24. rodney king picked a fight with police officers and we are supposed to feel sorry for him? what if he had killed one of the officers? would the residents of LA have rioted over that? |
|
|
|
|
|
read officer Coons book. it just may educate you on the reality of what happened that night. |
|
|
keltik31 |
|
|
|
|
|
== Indictment and prosecution of arresting officers == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've reverted a wholescale deletion of this section. (Reason given for deletion was "Irrelevant to rodney King as a person. If we are going to amke it politically biased, kets just remove it!") Regardless of my agreement or disagreement with this rationale, given the amount of discussion and editing that has gone into this section, removing the section should be discussed here in Talk prior to deleting the section wholescale. Let's attempt to reach a consensus on this in a way that will result in a minimal amount of information/knowledge being removed from Misplaced Pages completely, even if that means that it needs to be placed elsewhere in the encyclopedia (such as a separate article on the incident and trial, which I'm not sure is really needed). Thx. --] 07:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think it should stay. There wouldn't be an article about King unless the incident occured and there isn't a Wiki article that deals specificly with the incident (at least I haven't seen one). Arguably there could be and this article would become little more than a brief bio with a link to that article. Practically speaking, I think most people will search on the term Rodney King and will get the info the're looking for. ] 16:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Broken link?== |
|
|
A link that I had changed to link directly to a movie apparenly is no longer working. My guess is that the website disabled links out of wikipedia so I'm changing the references back. Since most people probably don't know that "cliquez ici" means click here, an english website with this video is needed. ] 16:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Rodney King (South African Martial Arts Coach)== |
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't really relevant to the police abuse case and should be in an article of its own. |
|
|
|
|
|
removed for now. |
|
|
|
|
|
== police procedure == |
|
|
|
|
|
Watching the video of the Rodney King beating left a terrible taste in my mouth. I think it unimaginable that anyone would find any rationality in proclaiming those actions warranted. My biggest grief with this incident is that some people including government representatives attempted to justify a crime caught on tape. As if a picture speaks a little less than a thousand words. My contribution to this article about Rodney King is, maybe an officer should have knelt down and placed a knee in the small of the back of the suspect and handcuffed him. Let's not try to create so many complex arguments to displace or attempt to justify deserved guilt. Maybe we should vote on taking away the martical arts programs and PAL from the police departments because they obviously don't use such tactics. We as a country have a long way to go still to eliminate some of the impetus pertaining to timid and intolerant minds that have caused crimes against humanity such as slavery, lynchings, and police brutality. Sun Tzu once summarixed that a country may create an empire with force, but to rule that empire with hypocrisy will eventually lead to its own demise. ] 05:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC) collective conscious |
|
|
|
|
|
because they police have to follow procedure. putting a knee in Kings back at that point was not the procedure. if you knew anyting about the case, you would know that prior to the video starting, king was swarmed by four officers and he threw them off. keltik 31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Im sick of people saying Rody King didnt desurve what he got but he probely doesnt even remember what happend to him since he was drunk out of his mind. When they pulled over Rodney he started to attack the cops so they started tazeing him and put nearly 100 volts in him but he wouldnt go down since he was drunk and didnt feel anything so they started to beat him so he would go down witch is police procedure. |
|
|
|
|
|
== RE: Police Procedure == |
|
|
|
|
|
It is obvious that you have no clue about police work, other than what you have seen on TV. These officers had no way of knowing if he was armed or not, and have the same instincts of every other human. The instinct to survie and to continue to live. Until you are faced with the situation that policeofficers in this country are faced with everyday, why dont you stick to sunkects that you know. And factually speaking, there was no crime committed by the officers, and jury of their peers agreed. Unless a jury convicts you, you are innocent. That is fundamental. The only crimes committed in the Rodney King incident were by Rodney King. All of the hooplah that followed, and the indicment of the officers was not justice, it was sensational journalism. A court of law concluded that the officers did not committ a crime, so that means they didnt. |
|
|
|
|
|
I dont have to know about police work to know common sense. Do you think that through the long time it took to constantly beat him over and over and over and ... that the trajectory of the shot from a gun would be unlikely given the he was laying on his stomach in a near fetal position? Or perhaps possibly if the officers did what I suggested above, that is, placing a knee in the center of the back and handcuffing him and then frisking him and then placing him in a vehicle, it would be over. Like in all other criminal cases where self defense is thrown out as a defense when a victim is SHOT IN THE BACK. In fact the guy attempted to crawl away. What bravery for the police department. Likewise, I show no prejudice to police officers and apply the same argument toward them as they would a criminal. That is... his back was to them when they mercilessly tortured him. In fact, it is my belief if Ghandi was in loin cloth traveling that night, they might have beat him the same. Racism is prominent in California, the simple tuth is that there is no way that Rodney King was a danger to those police officers. It is disgusting and unconscionable for anyone like yourself to assert such. In fact, it is so convincing from the evidence I have viewed, that an alterior motive of racism or a pre-dispoditional bias is an axiom for people like yourself to make such precarious statements in defense of those domestic terrori...excuse me officers. Nice try partner, but the rest of America rememebers California's racist actions against the minority groups there in the past. It is a stain which will never go away. Such men like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is immortalized in history in a positive perspective. How is California immortalized in history? I dont expect you to try to understand, our cultural history is one where pride is enveloped in the repression of and crimes against humanity toward other colored people. It takes significant effort to stray away from this, but many don't they don't realize how evil they really are until many years later their grandchildren must live with the shame of what has been done. You my friend obviously dont know about criminal justice. How many time has a jury convicted only to find out that the prosecution has withheld evidence? How many people have been exonerated because of DNA evidence resulting in moratoriums? How many innocent people are convicted? Try looking up the Denmark Vesey plot and the new research done by Michael Johnson (not the basketball player) of John Hopkins University. Where we executed slaves for a plot that now Professor Johnson and many other historians have claimed to be a lie and that the slaves were actually innocent even though history books today still mention that the slaves were found guilty. More importantly, get an EDUCATION. If you dont take heed to this, then remember one thing, minorities dont hate you, they love you, you dont have to be scared. |
|
|
|
|
|
Being a minority myslef, I do not need you to give me a speech about civil rights, but thank you for the effort. And as far as you reference to the slave days, I think all would agree that we have came a long ways since then. ] 00:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Those days may be forgiven but not forgotten. In case you have not been paying attention to the news, Mr. Killen, the individual responsible for killing the civil rights individuals in Mississippi during the civil rights movement ("Mississippi Burning" was based on this) was released due to poor health recently. HUmmmm? I do agree with you on one thing though, it has been a long time since slavery, moreover a long time , oooops, excuse me, when have we had a female or colored president? I think that if you are a minority you exemplify with skill the reference of Malcolm X in response to the few minority whom share the scraps from the table of power in order to keep their own kind in line. What is interesting is our foreign policy involves this same methodology. That is finding a few quislings or collaboraters of each nationality or ethnicity to be their political prostitutes. Time length does not forgive crimes against humanity, actions do partner, sorry. Americans must deal with our slavery, our genocide against Native Americans, and many more just as the Nazis and Germans today have to deal with the Holocaust and the Japanese with the Nankings. Let's not be jingoistic or chauvinistic. The proliferation of this country's economic hegemony was based on forced labor as its determinant. Affirmative action does not reimburse this crime but deters insurgency which may become a reality for this country if our steps are not tread lightly. When does compensation or the acres and mules come? Institutional racism should be a subject of study for you since you have made the mistake of relying on the unstated assumption that because the physical institution does not exist that there are no detrimental after effects from this physical and psychological evil practice. Try reading some psychology books and come back to me. It appears your stating that you are a minority to change or effect my viewpoint along with your self proclaimed knowledge of the Civil Rights Movement is hilarious to me. Being that if you knew about this movement , you would have remmebered the rhetoric distinguishing constituents of minorities detrimental to their own kind as a result of greed and other reasons. In addition, the civil rights movement for African-Americans was not about forgetting slavery, it was about living with that legacy and learning from it. OOOOps! ~~Colllective Conscious |
|
|
|
|
|
== Officer names? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I think there needs to be more information in this article and the LA riots one about the officer's names and just more general information about them. There is no Rodney King Trial article so the officers need to be linked to here and in many cases need to have whole bios written about them at the very least. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Why was this removed from the article? == |
|
|
|
|
|
"The verdict shocked much of the country. The President of the United States, George H. W. Bush, made a rare statement on the trial, saying that the verdict "has left us all with a deep sense of personal frustration and anguish." "Viewed from the outside, it was hard to understand how the verdict could possibly square with the video." Then he made sure that the nation understood that this was a family response, not a presidential directive. The president added that he, his wife Barbara, and his children were "stunned" by the verdict. The verdict triggered massive rioting in Los Angeles, which left hundreds of buildings severely damaged or destroyed and dozens dead. Smaller riots occurred in other U.S. cities. King made an appearance before television news cameras to plead for peace, saying, "Can't we get along here? Can't we all just get along?" |
|
|
|
|
|
On May 1, as the unrest continued, President Bush announced that he would most likely charge the officers with violating King's civil rights. King testified in this Federal trial on March 9, 1993. Then on August 4, a federal judge sentenced LAPD officers Stacey Koon and Laurence Powell to 30 months in prison on this charge. The other officers were not convicted, and there was no rioting." |
|
|
|
|
|
] 06:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think there needs to be some reworking of the section on the attack itself. Someone with no familiarity with the case or the video would not understand why the attack was such a sensation. The section on the attack spends extensive time explaining and justifying the early efforts by the police to subdue King but glosses over the extended sequence of beating that he received and, in its language, makes it seem like this was more mutual combat than the pretty savage beating which is on the tape. |
|
|
|
|
|
==A larger issue== |
|
|
|
|
|
Something which doesn't seem to have been brought up in this discussion (or the article) is the effect of public opinion on warping the perception of reality. The incident is seen by the public as representative of larger, more important issues. And so there is a strong desire by the public for the incident to be the poster child of that conflict. |
|
|
|
|
|
And that means the public... on both sides of the debate... has a strong tendency to ignore the actual facts and see the case instead as if it were an average representation of the larger conflicts. Whether or not Mr. King fought the police, for example, is strongly contested because one side doesn't want him to have fought police and the other side does. The motivation for this disagreement _IS NOT_ whether he really did or not in this particular incident. Rather each side wants it to have happened their own way in order to prove their points about the larger issues. |
|
|
|
|
|
This point is made more evident by the posts in this discussion by people who actually admit they have little knowledge of the incident and yet are certain they know what happened. They see in their minds not the actual event... because they admit they don't have that information... but instead an image based on their own beliefs and their own feelings about the larger conflict. And there is _no reason_ to believe that this synthesized reality has anything to do with what actually happened in the real world in this one particular incident. |
|
|
|
|
|
Whether or not Rodney King was unjustly beaten does not actually answer the question of whether or not unjust beatings are a common problem. The incident may not be representative of what typically happens. |
|
|
|
|
|
But both sides want it to be. And they want the facts to match their own viewpoints. |
|
|
|
|
|
For the black community, I feel it is a mistake to hold on to this. Their 'representative' in this matter is a real piece of work. They want to gloss over what a dangerous criminal this man is. But his criminal record before and after the incident is very telling. |
|
|
|
|
|
Conversely, most of the white population has, at least once in their lives, been accused of showing racism toward other groups, even when they were not. And they do resent that. So they would like it to be shown that the Rodney King incident is another example of the black community jumping to conclusions. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'll make one final point concerning the jury. I agree that the absense of black members of the jury is bad for the case. However, consider this... where exactly would they have found black jury members who would have listened to the case fairly? The feelings about the case clearly ran far deeper through the black community than they did through any other group (as evidenced by the riots). The defense was, I feel, correct in assuming that a jury of black people from LA would find the police officers guilty before the case even started. Again because of my points above. The feelings about the matter among other groups were more divided, so this arguably gave a better chance of reaching a legitimate conclusion. |
|
|
|
|
|
While this is certainly not ideal, the fact of the matter is that justice is very difficult or maybe even impossible to obtain while the weight of the public eye and brash public opinion weighs down on the proceedings. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 00:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Neutrality== |
|
|
|
|
|
Is this article completly neutral? |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't believe so. It seems to be arguing against the status quo--example, repeatedly mentioning the fact that King tried to get up. If it truly was neutral, I believe we wouldn't find phrases such as "what the video doesn't show us". |
|
|
|
|
|
==Eazy-E== |
|
|
|
|
|
I've edited the entry in the popular culture section regarding Eazy-E's song for grammar and spelling. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 21:49, 25 November 2006 (EST) |
|
As it stands, it's nonsense, because a blood alcohol content of 0.075% five hours after arrest would mean a blood alcohol content far over 0.08% at the time of arrest. I can't correct this because I don't know whether it's the "five hours" that is wrong, or the "not" in "not have been intoxicated", or the numbers. Someone who has this info please fix. Longitude2 (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
