I wonder if Reginald Denny asked himself:
"Where is a 30-round assault weapon when you need one?"
Oh ok. Were you on the jury? Maybe you can help me out a bit.
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.
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?
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.
If you saw all the evidence, you'd know that he attacked the police first.
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.
I thought it was pretty clear:
"When King didn’t comply and the officer continued to advance in his direction
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.
When he arose and rushed toward one of the officers, they believed he was under the influence of the drug PCP.
It's not.
Not an attack.
Not an attack and certainly not attacking them first.
Not an attack and certainly not attacking them first.
Refuting the claims you made is not a defense? Yes, it is.Ok, now you're not even backing up your statements. Simply denying everything I've pointed out isn't a defense.
Ok, now you're not even backing up your statements. Simply denying everything I've pointed out isn't a defense.
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.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.
Refuting the claims you made is not a defense? Yes, it is.
It's not.
Not an attack.
Not an attack and certainly not attacking them first.
Not an attack and certainly not attacking them first.
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.
It's not.
Not an attack.
Not an attack and certainly not attacking them first.
Not an attack and certainly not attacking them first.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?