Talk:Rodney King

No mention of peace advocacy work

In the header i added some text mentioning his peace work during the 1992 riots. But it was removed. I will readd it so that both the good and bad is told about Mr. King.

General Comments

---

The article states that there is no tape of Rodney King attacking the police officers. This is untrue, I have seen it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.177.12.38 (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does the article say: "more guns of all kinds were sold in the suburban areas surrounding the city, that day than any other day in the history of New York" when it's about LA? What does NY have to do with LA??

In the words of Michael "Flea" Balzary: "Hi, I should preface this by saying that I know nothing about anything." Ooookay...the article seems to be slighlty biased, and fails to adequately explain the racial overtones of the incident, or what black activists had to say about it. It's basically "big bad taxi driver gets pulled over, and WHOA!! there are riots all of a sudden!" Some polishing on this article would be appreciated.

This article fails to mention the court before which the police officers were tried. A case caption(s)/citation(s) would be nice.Steven 22:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Isnt this guy dead? I believe he got killed in a gang shootout over cocaine. 82.92.111.48 14:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

---

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. Tannin 07:54 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

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. --mav

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. Susan Mason

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%. -º¡º

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.) Tannin

I believe Leonard Peltier was tried with an all-white jury. Susan Mason

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. -º¡º

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. Tannin

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.) Tannin

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. Tannin

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. Kurt Weber 18:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

King was ON PAROLE for another violation, and didnt want to be caught. He resisted arrest. Most forget about the other 2 passengers that were detained non-violently. And he won a $15 million dollar judgement, not 4. Most of which went to his lawyers, a bogus record company he started, and up his nose. King has also been arrested for drug charges several times since. IMHO he is a dirtbag. Mike 14:15 07.26.07

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)

Reminds me of the story about the man whose wife caught him in bed with another woman. He protested, "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" Anyway, King was beaten for daring to resist arrest. With so many cops present, there was no excuse to beat him like that simply to arrest him. Also, many allegations in this article that King was on PCP - any lab results or legal finding to back up this accusation? If not, it should be removed.122.31.178.226 (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does this article have no mention of the other 2 men in the car who were also black but not beaten because they listened to the cops? Also why doesn't say that Rodney king was 6'3, 211 pounds, and rushed the cops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolteonkonishi (talk • contribs) 21:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Broken link moved here from article:

• Summary at the Canadian Department of Justice Bill 09:27, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

I certainly didn't. Thanks for catching that; I have no idea how it happened. Yours, Meelar 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.

Ivo 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."
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.

---

I saw the whole tape and trail on Court TV back in 92. King went 125 mph and then 70 in residential. He would not obey verbal commands. He didn't go down after a 50,000 volt taser. He threw two officers to the ground. What were the cops supposed to do?

NPOV tag removed?

An anon removed the NPOV tag on the article. Comparison of article before and after string of anon editing. 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 unsourced. 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. Jkelly 22:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

—=="get along"== I remember this as clearly as if it were yesterday.He did not say "Can we get along here? Can we all get along?" King said "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. Gazpacho 09:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC) ive seen the recordings myself n i beg to differ

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.--Metatree 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 Be Bold and Verifiability for related policy info. Antonrojo 18:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The article still alleges Mr. King was on PCP in the opening paragraph, citing a book that seems to contradict this. However, not all of the book is available online, so I've merely clarified what the online preview says for now. I'll try to get the cited book and research some more, this article looks like it could use improvement. -OakenWay (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2007 (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. Revelations 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[citation needed]. 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." Antonrojo 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. Nouseforaname312 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 LA Riots article (and linked to from here), this isn't the place for it. Smoothy 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. Nouseforaname312 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. --DavidGC 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. Antonrojo 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. Antonrojo 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. --DavidGC 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

Considering that Coons was actually convicted and served prison time for this incident, it's pretty laughable to cite his account as the most definitive and authoritative version. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.32.36.103 (talk) 17:22, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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. --DavidGC 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. Antonrojo 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. Antonrojo 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. 66.245.122.161 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.

In fact, being racist is standard police procedure in many countries. Johncmullen1960 20:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sad but true. It really doesn't matter if he was drunk or resisted arrest. They were four against one, and the kind of violence shown on the infamous tape is never warranted. Never.

However, this discussion doesn't really belong on Wiki. What does belong here is a discussion about the article still being wildly POV and trying to make it look like King "asked for it". --dllu 19:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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 survive and to continue to live. Until you are faced with the situation that police officers in this country are faced with everyday, why dont you stick to subjects 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.

Response to unsigned comment above: First, if the officers suspected he was armed, they would have shot him. Second, many people who commit crimes are found not guilty in court because of lack of evidence, a poorly prosecuted case, or a very clever defense lawyer (O.J. Simpson perhaps), and many who ARE found guilty are later released. In a recent case a man spent 27 years in a Texas prison for a rape he didn't commit and was released after the evidence was DNA tested. Police beat people to punish them for resisting. This is illegal but it happens routinely.122.31.178.226 (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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. Johnppd24 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

why are you attempting to minimize a hate crime against a black man by three terrible racist, criminal thugs who beat an unarmed black man simply because he was an african american? this is not really an isolated case, perhaps an extreme version but I read about hate crimes being committed by police all over the world each day, even in the best of cities where there is no real racial tension like here in Canada. Even if Rodney King was the worst human being in your eyes, he does not deserve to be brutally beaten by police officials. You are trying to minimize a government sponsered hate crime on an innocent black man.

--Eternalsleeper 09:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No matter how much you want to make it so, it was not a hate crime. And your comments don't help improve the article. Jtpaladin 19:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the real clincher here is more the fact that there were a good few parts in the video where he is lying face-down and motionless on the ground, sometimes for up to 10seconds.

Regardless of what he did before the tape rolled, everyone can see that there was plenty of time for the officers on hand to jump on him and get it sorted, (you can actually see seven of them on the video).

For all the people that think this should be deemed justifiable on the basis that he should've just laid still and not "resisted"... The human instinct, of either fighting or getting away (from the people that are beating you sh!tless) is pretty strong... I mean look at the injured man crawl, he sure as hell isn't going for the cops. It's called "Fight or Flight" - not "Fight, Flight or Stand Still" - Google it, or test it out yourselves, get a group of power-tripping dullards to start beating you and see how you react... Do it a couple of times if you need to.

BTW if the cops seriously suspect that someone might actually have a firearm, they'd have their guns out, right?

tactik 16:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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 offiknm.jk.k.kj.cers were not convicted, and there was no rioting."

MisterSheik 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.

24.23.231.54 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.

User:Blairco 21:49, 25 November 2006 (EST)

[Racist slur edited out]

i had to take this out. Keltik31 20:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

and this has to come out too

While most police departments teach officers how to perform armlocks and other restraint techniques with their batons, the LAPD officers had only been trained in striking techniques.

this is absolutly false. the lapd used to use choke holds and all of the officer involved knew how to use the choke hold. the department decieded to cease using such holds when a few black suspects died and there was an outcry from the black community. that is is stacy coon's book. Keltik31 20:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Read the sentence, it says the officers had not been trained on restraint techniques with their batons. It says nothing about choke holds.Blackeagle 04:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

no scull fracture

king did not suffer a fractured scull. he did suffer a fracture to his cheek when he fell to the ground. he was never struck on the head with the pr24 baton. Keltik31 21:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Your cheek being part of your skull, Genius. tactik 16:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

and this too

The video footage, while showing most of the incident, is notably lacking in the first few minutes of the confrontation, during which King is alleged to have lunged for the weapon of one of the police officers present - Lawrence Powell, and in sound.

i had to remove this as well because it is false. the very first few seconds of the tape in fact DO show king lunging at one of the officers. what was played over and over on the news was not this part, but of the part showing king laying on the ground being hit with the batons. it should maybe be explained in the article that police work is a dirty job sometimes and that when suspects get violent with the police, the police have to respond. Keltik31 21:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

gauntlet

this article failed to add information on the gauntlet run by blacks and hispanics that violently attacked white motorists. i added it. Keltik31 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggest you read Running the gauntlet... Addhoc 21:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Explorer hack

This page has been hacked: view it in Explorer (not Firefox) and you'll see profanity in stead of the name "Rodney King".

This comment was made on December 15, 2006. I dug through the History out of curiosity about how vandalism of the page would insert such an elaborate code, and didn't find any such markup at all. Either the markup was all taken out of the history of the article or there was only a difference in timing with which the original poster opened each browser. Wnt (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Splitting article

So, who wants to split the references in popular culture section into another article like how has been done with List of Minotaur references in popular culture? Right now the popular culture section is longer than the article itself. Sparsefarce 04:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's kind of silly to have a 'pop culture references' section longer than the rest of the article. I don't know if there's a specific place to officially request it or not, but if I don't see any updates within a month, I'll go ahead and split it myself. I mean, really, do we have to list each and every pop culture reference on the main page? Ehurtley 23:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

there are some silly things in here

especially about other than humans being upset about this. Keltik31 19:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

2007

I wonder was he had done untile now, all these years? --Ricky59 15:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Full Video Tape" evidence of King "rushing" police officers?

The article references that the Simi jury saw a "full" tape which included King "rushing" the police officers, implying that this additional footage swayed the jury. I have checked YouTube, and the longest segment I can find is 1:26. It shows King kneeling, apparently trying to get up off of the ground, while one officer repeatedly strikes him with a baton. Is this what the article is referencing? If so it's POV and inappropriate.DougRWms 03:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

George Holliday's website (http://www.multishow.com.ar/rodneyking/index.html) shows a 1:48 "screening tape" of the incident, which includes sound. The video is partially obscured by Mr. Holliday's copyright information (presumably to discourage unauthorized duplication of the proprietary video). The homepage of Mr. Holliday's site claims that the video is 12 minutes long. The page's "second by second" analysis of the tape contains a reference to Mr. King "charging" Ofcr. Powell. I was not able to discern this in the tape. Since the "second by second" analysis does not contain time markers (as in, "00:32, King is up and rushes Officer Powell), I don't know when (or whether) this alleged charge occurs.DougRWms 03:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

See this version. Page includes second-by-second account. I wouldn't call what King did "charging". It looks more like a stagger, and that he was too punch-drunk to know which way to go. His arm is up, extended, at shoulder-level, as to try (pitifully) to protect himself, NOT to take a gun. 16 Sept 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.166.252 (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you watch these videos WITH sound you clearly hear police offers stating to stay down. However, they did not use proper means of restraint and were not in clear danger. They are attempting to enforce compliance however they are doing it EXCESSIVELY and IMPROPERLY. Both sides are correct and Rodney King could have easily stopped the beating by laing on the ground. You will see hiim get up repeatedly. Should officers have struck him as such? You decide (I say no) but are the officers in the wrong? NO. You break the law, you don't comply you deal with the reprocussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.37.19 (talk) 05:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone keeps changing this section to assert categorically that there is no question of any part of the video evidence being in dispute. I find this a sad and bigoted view, especially in the light of that evidence's weight in the jury's findings. rturus (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Taxi driver

What evidence is there that he was a taxi driver or still is? If he were awarded 4 million dollars I highly doubt he is driving taxi anymore, not sure if he ever dead and I suggest it be removed if there is no credibility to that suggestion! --Eternalsleeper 09:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

he got four million, but his lawyers got a lot of it, plus uncle sam took his share too. when you give a load of money to a druggie, what do you expect him to do? invest it? no, he blew it on drugs. Tybridgefarm (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This Article Really Needs Revising

Rodney King was a dangerous criminal, and he should've been beaten worse. Does no one see his history? He led police on a dangerous chase, and he endangered lives! He should've been dealt a harsh sentence, and the beating was not as bad as hitting someone with a car and killing them? What tune would you sing if he hit one of your family members? White America needs to stop looking at this in a victim light. He is a dangerous man, and deserves what he got. The officers were doing their duty. - Auguest 3rd -

"He is a dangerous man, and deserves what he got."

Yeah... he sure looked dangerous, lying on the ground, motionless, being beaten.

As for chasing petty criminals... I've seen enough crappy Cops-style car chases in my time... I came to the conclusion pretty quickly that "people run from the cops, when the cops chase them".. I think the onus is on the police in the situation (as Protectors of the Public) to weigh up the pro's and cons based on their extensive experience.

ie; He had a broken tail-light, but if we give chase and he runs then he'll probably crash and either hurt someone/himself/us or cause a lot of damage.

tactik 16:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Tactik, you don't understand. The KKK is not available on such short notice, so these craven thugs "were doing their duty". 17 Sept 2007

Remove Neutrality Tag

This article seemed pretty neutral to me, providing both sides of the story. -August 13, 2007

Stop being facetious.tactik 16:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please point out exactly what is not neutrally presented. -Pgan002 03:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It may be missing some good information, nowhere did I see it imply that the level of King's beatings during his arrest was justified. I think the section on public opinion being swayed by the media is most important. That's what the rioting on this really hinged on; the tapes shown by the media which only showed beatings, not the intial resistance of King to the police. I still don't say their level of force was appropriate, but seeing the entire tape in total with the police testimony helps to place it into perspective, which lessens the level of outrage at the officer's actions. Data on King's past transgressions (and subsequent ones) only helps to lend credibility to the assertion that he was not a completely innocent victim of police officer racism. They had cause, and were certainly agitated by his behavior. His violent past and present I think is necessary place weight in that point of view.Oberlin1 (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Oberlin

Don't use this talk page as a soapbox

That's not what it's for, people. Jtrainor 17:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It is, as well, feasible to assert a wide variety of potential interpretations f/ that evidence. Further, it is a credible argument that even the most severe torturer, genocidal practitioner, should not, in turn, be tortured. However, due to the above comment, I am resisting the temptation to attempt to list-out those various rationales.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Rodney_Glen_King; Rodney_Glenn_King

I do wonder whether he would spell it as Rodney_Glen_King or Rodney_Glenn_King. It is my impression, recollection, that that morning, & the previous night, he had referred to himself as _Glen_King, _Glenn_King, & that the officers had complained to him that he had not stated his full name. One of the officers complaining had, as well, been named Glen King, Glenn King. I have always wondered whether a contributory factor towards employing the middlename might have been avoiding Rod King. Are you aware of his ever having been asked that??

Some of the television reports are claiming that last night, subsequent to being shot, he rode a bicycle to his home, that he then called the police department of whichever city.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Firts line errors

Sorry to add more to this discussion, but the first line states that King was beaten during the 1992 riots. He was in fact beaten by members of the LAPD in March of 1991. Their acquittal in 1992 is the event which touched off the riots of that year. More on Rodney King in today's (Thursday 29 November 2007) news reports that he was shot while riding a bicycle. He continued to his home and called the police, who stated that his injuries were minor. zhenjiu 22:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)zhenjiu

'Incident' section only has 1 POV

Only the story of the police in this section...add King's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.236.67 (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC) ]

absolutley false

"There is no part of the tape that shows Mr. King attacking the officers, as some have claim"

this part of the article is absolutely false. if you watch the very beginning of the video it clearly shows king charging at the officer. king was told over and over again to comply and he refused. Valliant1967 (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I just clicked on the link in the article and watched the tape. It shows no such thing. He's flat on his belly at the very beginning. You're lying. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, any claims need to be backed up with a reliable source. The claim above was not. It was sourced by a company that is licensing the video, whereas we need either a newspaper, magazine, etc. that analyzes the video on their own and reports on it. We can't watch the video ourselves and make any claim in the article (wikipedia editors are not reliable sources.) I've noted that a citation is needed on the above claim, but any un-sourced somewhat controversial statement like this can be removed without discussion. thanks, --guyzero | talk 00:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

anderson, you need to watch the whole video. i dont know what version you watched, but you can see in the whole video King lunge at officer Powell. Valliant1967 (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Troll bridge approaching. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

isnt "trollbridge" a personal attack? Valliant1967 (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the version of the video you are watching, in which Greedo King attacks first. Otherwise, drop this line of thought for lack of evidence. ThuranX (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

i've been searching for a version of the video that shows the first 3-5 seconds where king does charge at one of the officers. there are versions on youtube that are edited. i will keep searching. Valliant1967 (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The sockpuppet/troll who started this thread has already been blocked, after which he threatened on his talk page to return, so keep an eye out for him. For what it's worth, I did find a version of the video that begins about 12 seconds earlier than the one posted in the external links here. The first four or five seconds of that are very shaky, but do seem to show King on his hands and knees and in motion. It's anybody's guess whether he's charging someone or trying to get away from the blows being inflicted on him. This is followed by seven or eight seconds of extremely blurry footage in which nothing can be clearly seen while the camera operator tries to adjust his settings. All of this proves nothing, obviously, and constitutes no reason to make any changes to this article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

this article is nonsense and needs to be corrected

rodney king was running from the cops at a high rate of speed that night. he was finally pulled over and told at gunpoint to get out of the car and put his hands behind his back. he refused. four police officers swarmed him and he threw them off. he did charge at one of the officers and was knocked down with a baton. at that point he was tased. it had little effect as the tasers have been much improved since then. he then contined to refuse to comply and at that point the officers used their batons to try and break kings elbows and knees. THAT IS WHAT THE LAPD'S USE OF FORCE POLICY SAID THEY WERE ALLOWED TO DO. the officers broke no laws that day. they complied with the use of force policy. this article needs more info on kings long and violent criminal record. it needs to have more info about the lapd's use of force policy and needs to stop acting like king was out for a sunday drive and four racist police officers pulled him over for a beating. there were also two black passngers in the car with king, they were arrested without incident because they didnt try to attack an officer like king did. i will correct this article when i get the time. believe me. Tybridgefarm (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point - the article seems to suggest that because Holliday did not film King attacking the officers, it did not happen, which is dubious at best. There's no mention of the others in the car, or of King's previous criminal record. Also, was he under the influence of PCP as suggested at the time? The fact that he was later arrested for being on this very drug seems like a huge coincidence. Yet another left-wing Wikipedia whitewash.--MartinUK (talk) 10:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

i agree completely. i remember seeing the whole video on the rush limbaugh show where he loops the part where king lunged at the police and was knocked down with a baton. over and over again he showed it. king clearly was in the wrong here, but to read this article you'd think it was a racially motivated attack. if you want to read the truth about this incident, read stacy koon's book: Presumed Guilty. nobody ever challenged what he said in that book about the use of force policy that actualy required the officers to deal with king the way they did. not exactly a wikipedia whitewash, but close. i think wikipedia is afraid of the truth on a lot of topics. Tybridgefarm (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)