More than 40 shot in Chicago over the weekend

[Aldebaran]

I wonder if Reginald Denny asked himself:

"Where is a 30-round assault weapon when you need one?"

Based on what those thugs did, he might have been thinking to himself: "They need to pass a law against 'assault bricks and rocks'.

 

[Aldebaran]

Oh ok. Were you on the jury? Maybe you can help me out a bit.

The Limits of Videotape: An Echo of Rodney King | RealClearPolitics

 

[bhsmte]

The Limits of Videotape: An Echo of Rodney King | RealClearPolitics

All evidence has limits and it is the lawyers job to point those out in court. With that said, observing that tape, I saw no reason those cops had to continue beating King, when he was surrounded by 8-10 cops. What were they scared of, in that situation?

 

[Aldebaran]

All evidence has limits and it is the lawyers job to point those out in court. With that said, observing that tape, I saw no reason those cops had to continue beating King, when he was surrounded by 8-10 cops. What were they scared of, in that situation?

The contents of that link tells the rest of the story. That's what came out in court. The videotape itself, of course, is most dramatic, and that's what was put out there for public consumption. But clearly, it doesn't tell the whole story.

 

[bhsmte]

The contents of that link tells the rest of the story. That's what came out in court. The videotape itself, of course, is most dramatic, and that's what was put out there for public consumption. But clearly, it doesn't tell the whole story.

The video tells the whole story of what happened during the duration of the video. Clearly, King was surrounded by a large group of cops and they kept beating him relentlessly. I don't care what happened before hand, because they tape clearly shows (to me), they had no need to continue beating him, to subdue him, when he was not armed and surrounded by cops.

 

[Aldebaran]

The video tells the whole story of what happened during the duration of the video. Clearly, King was surrounded by a large group of cops and they kept beating him relentlessly. I don't care what happened before hand, because they tape clearly shows (to me), they had no need to continue beating him, to subdue him, when he was not armed and surrounded by cops.

That's only circular reasoning. Of course the video shows what the video shows. You could see a video of a person being shot, and nothing else. But what if the person being shot had just broken into a home and pointed a weapon at the homeowner, but that part isn't on the video? Does the video tell the whole story?

 

[iluvatar5150]

The Limits of Videotape: An Echo of Rodney King | RealClearPolitics

Ok, so you're wrong on a couple counts.

First, the entire video is available now and I'd watched it before asking you what I'd missed. You can view it here:

Second, nothing in the video (or in that article) supports your claim that he attacked the police first. At worst, it shows him merely trying to escape.

 

[bhsmte]

That's only circular reasoning. Of course the video shows what the video shows. You could see a video of a person being shot, and nothing else. But what if the person being shot had just broken into a home and pointed a weapon at the homeowner, but that part isn't on the video? Does the video tell the whole story?

The video tells the whole story of what happened during the video. Polices job is to subdue and take custody of suspects, no matter what the suspect has done. The only time they are allowed to constantly beat a subject, is when there is a current threat from the suspect. Surrounded by 10 cops, unarmed and being beaten repeatedly, was not required to take him into custody.

 

[bhsmte]

For a state (California) that is supposed to be liberal and less racist, they have some of the most racially driven legal decisions. This King issue and OJ come to mind right off the bat.

 

[Aldebaran]

Ok, so you're wrong on a couple counts.

First, the entire video is available now and I'd watched it before asking you what I'd missed. You can view it here:

Second, nothing in the video (or in that article) supports your claim that he attacked the police first. At worst, it shows him merely trying to escape.

The article does indeed support my claim. I'll post a part of it here:

"On March 3, 1991, a husband-and-wife team of California Highway Patrol officers pursued King on Los Angeles freeways at speeds of up to 100 miles an hour. The chase ended near the darkened entrance to a county park in an obscure suburb. The woman CHP officer drew her gun and shouted at King, who was intoxicated, to lie on the ground. When King didn’t comply and the officer continued to advance in his direction, an LAPD sergeant on the scene who feared the incident might end in a shooting, took over the arrest.

The sergeant tried to arrest King by the book, yelling at him to lie on the ground. When he didn’t, the sergeant directed four LAPD officers to jump on King and handcuff him. King, a large and muscular man, threw them off his back. The sergeant then shot him with an electric stun gun known as a Taser, which fires two cassette cartridges that connect with skin or clothing through small darts, each generating 50,000 volts of electricity. The darts struck King, who groaned and fell to the ground. When he arose and rushed toward one of the officers, they believed he was under the influence of the drug PCP.

About the time King was moving toward the officer, an amateur cameraman in an apartment across the street who had been awakened by police sirens began shooting video. He had not witnessed the several minutes in which the officers attempted to take King into custody without using their police batons. The videotape of the beating of King lasts 81 seconds. The cameraman took it to a local television station, which edited it to 68 seconds, eliminating blurry footage that also omitted King’s charge at the officer. What remained is what most of us saw again and again on television: white officers savagely beating a helpless black man for no apparent reason.

Covering the trial for The Washington Post, I was a few feet from the jurors when the unedited tape was played for them. The jaw of the jury forewoman literally dropped open; she had suspected there was more to the video than she had seen on television, and the playing of the unedited tape confirmed her fears. Worse, it was first played in the courtroom by the prosecutor, operating on the well-worn theory that it’s better to put potentially damaging evidence on the record and explain it before attorneys for the other side can do so."

 

[iluvatar5150]

The article does indeed support my claim.

Let's revisit that claim. You said:

If you saw all the evidence, you'd know that he attacked the police first.

(emphasis added)

From the article:

The sergeant tried to arrest King by the book, yelling at him to lie on the ground. When he didn’t, the sergeant directed four LAPD officers to jump on King and handcuff him. King, a large and muscular man, threw them off his back. The sergeant then shot him with an electric stun gun known as a Taser, which fires two cassette cartridges that connect with skin or clothing through small darts, each generating 50,000 volts of electricity. The darts struck King, who groaned and fell to the ground. When he arose and rushed toward one of the officers, they believed he was under the influence of the drug PCP.

Where in that paragraph does it describe King attacking first?

It doesn't.

Does it say that he refused to comply? Yep. Is that backed up by the video evidence? Yep. But the closest the article gets to saying that he attacked an officer is saying that he rushed towards one of them. And that was only after he'd been tazed, not before as you alleged.

I've watched the video and I can see him get up and start to run, but as to whether he was rushing at an officer or merely trying to run by to escape is wholly inconclusive. I do not see his hands move in a way that suggests he intended to strike anyone. Regardless, he was on the ground for some time after that while officers continued to strike him.

 

[Aldebaran]

Where in that paragraph does it describe King attacking first?

It doesn't.

I thought it was pretty clear:
"When King didn’t comply and the officer continued to advance in his direction, an LAPD sergeant on the scene who feared the incident might end in a shooting, took over the arrest.

The sergeant tried to arrest King by the book, yelling at him to lie on the ground. When he didn’t, the sergeant directed four LAPD officers to jump on King and handcuff him. King, a large and muscular man, threw them off his back. The sergeant then shot him with an electric stun gun known as a Taser, which fires two cassette cartridges that connect with skin or clothing through small darts, each generating 50,000 volts of electricity. The darts struck King, who groaned and fell to the ground. When he arose and rushed toward one of the officers, they believed he was under the influence of the drug PCP.

Does it say that he refused to comply? Yep. Is that backed up by the video evidence? Yep. But the closest the article gets to saying that he attacked an officer is saying that he rushed towards one of them. And that was only after he'd been tazed, not before as you alleged.

Read the first 2 bolded sections above.

I've watched the video and I can see him get up and start to run, but as to whether he was rushing at an officer or merely trying to run by to escape is wholly inconclusive. I do not see his hands move in a way that suggests he intended to strike anyone. Regardless, he was on the ground for some time after that while officers continued to strike him.

When viewed in the context of his actions prior to this, the officers just wanted him down, but he continued trying to get up after their attempts prior and during the videotape to get him to stay down.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I thought it was pretty clear:

It's not.

"When King didn’t comply and the officer continued to advance in his direction

Not an attack.

The sergeant tried to arrest King by the book, yelling at him to lie on the ground. When he didn’t, the sergeant directed four LAPD officers to jump on King and handcuff him. King, a large and muscular man, threw them off his back.

Not an attack and certainly not attacking them first.

When he arose and rushed toward one of the officers, they believed he was under the influence of the drug PCP.

Not an attack and certainly not attacking them first.

 

[Aldebaran]

It's not.



Not an attack.



Not an attack and certainly not attacking them first.



Not an attack and certainly not attacking them first.

Ok, now you're not even backing up your statements. Simply denying everything I've pointed out isn't a defense.

 

[SummerMadness]

Ok, now you're not even backing up your statements. Simply denying everything I've pointed out isn't a defense.

Refuting the claims you made is not a defense? Yes, it is.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Ok, now you're not even backing up your statements. Simply denying everything I've pointed out isn't a defense.

I went through your post blow-by-blow and pointed out how all the things you claimed were attacks weren't actually attacks.

If you don't understand how resisting != attacking and how reacting to a Tazer != attacking first, then I don't really know what to tell you. I can't teach you reading comprehension.

 

[rturner76]

I'm glad you see it that way. When a perpetrator attacks police, it is perfectly legal for them to use force in response. The difference between Reginald Denny and Rodney King is that King had been stopped by the police after he led them on a high speed chase. Denny was a truck driver who fell victim to a bunch of people who wanted to do violence to white people as an act of vengeance.

I said the government sanctioned Rodney King's beating and the government considered it perfectly legal. I didn't say it was the right thing to do. I don't know why people think that because someone evades the police or does not follow and order, even if they resist arrest,it doesn't give the police the right to beat and kick a man when they are down on their knees. Police are not allowed to have a vendetta. They are there to subdue the suspect,nothing more. They are not thereto hand out beatings. I'm going to go ahead and take it here....had that been short haired blond man with blue eyes, they would have had t hand in their badges and face assault charges with a nice lawsuit to boot. Rodney King they considered a beast that needed to be brought to heel and they went over the line on him.

 

[Aldebaran]

Refuting the claims you made is not a defense? Yes, it is.

Read his response carefully:

It's not.

Not an attack.

Not an attack and certainly not attacking them first.

Not an attack and certainly not attacking them first.

Basically saying "Nuh Uh!" without any substance is not a defense. It's simply a sign that his argument has run dry.

 

[Aldebaran]

I went through your post blow-by-blow and pointed out how all the things you claimed were attacks weren't actually attacks.

If you don't understand how resisting != attacking and how reacting to a Tazer != attacking first, then I don't really know what to tell you. I can't teach you reading comprehension.

Here's your "Blow by blow":

It's not.

Not an attack.

Not an attack and certainly not attacking them first.

Not an attack and certainly not attacking them first.

You'll have to try a little harder than that.

 

[Aldebaran]

I said the government sanctioned Rodney King's beating and the government considered it perfectly legal. I didn't say it was the right thing to do. I don't know why people think that because someone evades the police or does not follow and order, even if they resist arrest,it doesn't give the police the right to beat and kick a man when they are down on their knees. Police are not allowed to have a vendetta. They are there to subdue the suspect,nothing more. They are not thereto hand out beatings.

Don't you think leading the police on a high speed chase (not to mention putting the public at great risk in doing so), getting violent with the police and continuing to do so after being told in no uncertain terms to get down on the ground isn't going to escalate things? He had a long history of being violent, and it was being demonstrated once again.

I'm going to go ahead and take it here....had that been short haired blond man with blue eyes, they would have had t hand in their badges and face assault charges with a nice lawsuit to boot. Rodney King they considered a beast that needed to be brought to heel and they went over the line on him.

I just knew a racist post was coming....