codeorama Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 But Rodney King was wronged.. let's burn our city...:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montilar Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Sad thing is I, and most everyone else, can easily guess at his most likely defense. And even sadder is someone will buy it. "I was afraid to stop for the cops because of what they did to me." :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 ....He was convicted of spouse abuse in 1999 in San Bernardino County and was sentenced to 90 days in jail and four years' probation. King pleaded no contest to three counts of being under the influence of PCP and a count of indecent exposure in October 2001.... so he beat his wife, get's caught with PCP, now this.... hmm....three strikes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Refresh my memory, were any of the cops convicted? If not, then he certainly got exactly what he deserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 We had a local story in my city last year where a woman who was high on crack went on a NASCAR rampage through the city... the police were trying to pull her over because her tags were expired and she was driving strangely, and she took off on a high speed chase. She ran through people's yards and created quite a dangerous mess. She finally was stopped and the police opened her car door and she hit reverse and dragged the cop, several other cops fired at the woman and killed her while she was dragging the cop. There were no riots, but it was a HUGE racial outburst, the woman driving the car was african american and the cops were white. The cops were not found guilty of anything, there were witnesses that verified that the cops life was in danger, the woman had large amounts of crack in her system and a history. But the reaction by many was that her death was a result of racism and so on.. it was a really bad situation. The naacp got involved as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Sorry to be the sole voice of dissent on this police brutality lovefest, however cops should never ever ever have the option to beat anybody for any reason over and above what is necessary to subdue someone who is resisting arrest. Period. Sure, I've heard all the nonsense about "the adrenaline was flowing etc" However, the fact remains that there is no legit reason and they have no right whatsoever to use excessive force--regardless of the color of the perpetrator and the officers involved. Their job as police officers is to arrest the subject in as professional a manner as possible and with the use of the least amount of force as is needed. Of course, we all know this doesn't always happen. Everybody on this board has a job (I assume) and if any of us went to work and decided that we wanted to do something outside of company policy just because we were in the heat of the moment and "the adrenaline was flowing" we'd all be fired or at least reprimanded. Whenever I am stopped for some traffic violation by a cop I am always polite and reasonable. I demand the same from them. However, those who are not polite and reasonable deserve to be handled with a certain degree of professionalism as well. Subduing and arresting them is professional. Kicking, punching and otherwise brutalizing them AFTER THEY HAVE STOPPED RESISTING is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 cops should never ever ever have the option to beat anybody for any reason over and above what is necessary to subdue someone who is resisting arrest. Period. And that is exactly what they were doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 You could not pay me ANY amout of money to be a police officer. They are out there to protect us from craziness, yet it seems the criminals have more rights than us normal citizens who don't go out getting high and putting other people's lives in danger. This is just my opinion, but once someone has broken the law to the degree that King did and put so many lives at risk, he no longer is entitled to his rights. Rights should be reserved to law abiding citizens that don't endanger the lives of other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posse81 Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Refresh my memory, were any of the cops convicted? If not, then he certainly got exactly what he deserved. OJ wasn't convicted either. The implication that our legal system is perfect is laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Just in my opinion, OJ should not have been convicted based on the prosecution's case, if I were a juror, I would have voted Not Guilty as well. But I don't believe anyone would claim the judicial system is flawless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 So we ignore those verdicts that we disagree with? Perfect or not, it is the law of the land. King got EXACTLY what he deserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posse81 Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Personally, I'm not ignoring either the OJ or King verdicts. I agree, its the law of the land. I think that saying King got exactly what he deserved because the officers were not convicted is flawed reasoning. Assuming so would assume that the verdict was just. It would also assume that OJ not being convicted was just. I disagree with that, but maybe others don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 It was just. Just is determined by the jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posse81 Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Just is determined by the jury. In theory, yes. In reality, no. Innocent people have been convicted and sentenced to death under our legal system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Just is determined by the jury. I figure I know you well enough by now to assume this was sarcasm. The jury in the strictest sense only decides which side put on the more convincing case within the rules of evidence. It doesn't determine who's right or wrong, or make any other moral decision, no matter what flowery language we attach to the system. That's why it's perfectly fair to say that someone like OJ was responsible for the crimes even if he wasn't held responsible for those crimes by the criminal justice system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awgustlab Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Originally posted by stratoman King later received a $3.8 million settlement from the city of Los Angeles in 1994. Hell, I'll take a good *** kicking for that kind of jack and you guys don't even have to feel sorry for me. Champ24Bailey, I wouldn't even ask you to pray for me, either. Just give me that fat check and I'll be on my merry way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Originally posted by Awgustlab Hell, I'll take a good *** kicking for that kind of jack and you guys don't even have to feel sorry for me. Champ24Bailey, I wouldn't even ask you to pray for me, either. Just give me that fat check and I'll be on my merry way. HELL YEAH:cheers: Let the beatings begin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Code, What happened with that lady that was shot? I am talking about the cities outrage and the family of the women, thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Originally posted by jbooma Code, What happened with that lady that was shot? I am talking about the cities outrage and the family of the women, thanks The judge dismissed any charges against the police officers... The FBI were brought in to see what they could come up with but found no wrong doings... There was a huge meeting that took place with african american citizens outraged that the woman was "murdered" by the police. I work with police officers and there was a racial divide even amongst them. Based ONLY on the officers that I came across, the black officers felt they could have done more to try to stop the woman before shooting her, the white officers felt there was no wrong doing. On another note, the lady's car was by my office, (my office is near the police shop and impound lot) It had bullett holes through the windshield, blood all over the place inside and the driver side door was bent down from the weight of the officer being dragged. The media was around here for days. Needless to say, there was a lot of tension in the city for weeks. The woman's child went to the school that my mom is a secretary at and there were councilers that came in frequently. There were 2 video's of the car chase, I saw one, I thought the shooting was justified (meaning if I was a cop, I would have been scared for my partner's life) here is a link to one reaction: http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/psn/2001/msg00646.html Here is a newspaper articles account :http://www.pilotonline.com/breaking/br0103law.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.