Author Topic: Rodney King (Read 3191 times)

SaburoS · « **Reply #105 on:** April 21, 2003, 12:28:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick

Saburo, you seem to want to use this situation to tar ALL Officers of all Departments by stating they suffered as a result of this situation. That is your prejudice there. Please recognise it and keep it to yourself. All Officers are not like this situation and frankly very few situations are like this one as well. That is why it made such a big news production. It was news as it is rarther infrequent. If it were commonplace it would not have been news, so please refrain from generalizing about Officers because of this incident.

You seem to want to catagorize in boxes views other than your own. My critical comments have been limited to this case only. Perhaps if you'll point out where I try to "tar ALL Officers of all Departments."

Maybe it is you that is prejudiced.

Perhaps you'll look at the trial transcripts of the people that were actually there. Tim Singer and Melanie Singer (both CHP) were both there. Theirs would be unbiased testimony. Briseno was there too, LAPD. I guess those three hate the police dept also since their testimony counters Koon's and Powell's also, eh?

Perhaps you'll look at the police reports (Koon's, Powell's, Singer's). Have a look again at the video. Look at the radio transmission. Take them all together, then make your statements.

BTW, As far as "escalating" the situation by drawing firearms, that had already been done early on.

How about you state the facts of this case (and this case only) and then argue/debate your position.

SaburoS · « **Reply #106 on:** April 21, 2003, 12:40:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund

That is impossible to give a general answer to..."how do you determine the truth" LOL who says we get even close to the truth even half of the time? You think this is easy?

I can say this though, we always presume the cops tell the truth yeah. I've never been on a case where a cop has been the defendant though. Maybe it would be different then, I dunno.

...then look at the not-guilty verdict from the court.

Face it, you dont know enough about the case to make the kind of statements you are making. [/B]

Oh, I see. All decisions from all juries are just and accurate to what actually happened.
The following taken from:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/lapdaccount.html
********
Both sides understood that jury selection could be critical to the trial outcome. The prosecution would have loved to seat some blacks--who tend to be skeptical of police practices--, but the jury pool of 260 people included only a half dozen African Americans--and five of those had no interest in serving on a jury in what they considered hostile territory. Michael Stone, attorney for Officer Powell, used a peremptory challenge to strike the one black to make it to the jury box. Even more troubling for the prosecution, all the potential jurors seemed to be very pro-law enforcement. Two jurors were N.R.A. members. Two other jurors were retired military veterans. Terry White, chief prosecutor in the case and an African-American, complained that "everyone seemed very pro-police; they all seemed to come from the same background." White later recalled thinking "we were going to lose this case." Jo-Ann Dimitrius, jury consultant for the defense, was understandably delighted with the final twelve. She called it "a gem of a jury."
***********

BTW, do you feel OJ Simpson is guilty of not guilty of Nicole's death? We know what the first jury decided, but do you feel he killed Nicole?

SaburoS · « **Reply #107 on:** April 21, 2003, 12:44:36 PM »

Funny how it was so important for King to be face down, prone (he was actually yet he still got beat), yet they ended up cuffing him as he was sitting up. Interesting reasoning for the beatings.

Hortlund · « **Reply #108 on:** April 21, 2003, 12:47:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SaburoS
Oh, I see. All decisions from all juries are just and accurate to what actually happened.

[/b]
Eh...no, that is not what I said.

Quote

BTW, do you feel OJ Simpson is guilty of not guilty of Nicole's death? We know what the first jury decided, but do you feel he killed Nicole?

Well, in the eyes of the law he is innocent, but he did murder those two people.

SaburoS · « **Reply #109 on:** April 21, 2003, 12:57:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund

Eh...no, that is not what I said.

Well, in the eyes of the law he is innocent, but he did murder those two people. [/B]

There is hope for you after all

Maverick · « **Reply #110 on:** April 21, 2003, 03:50:14 PM »

Saburo,

I had thought that before I made my post I had read in one of yours that the king incident had set law enforcement back and that they had not recovered. That was the reason I put that paragraph you quoted in my post. I went back today and did not see that comment in any posts including yours. I do not know if I made a mistake and atributed it to you or if it was edited out. If it was a mistake I aplogize. If it wasn't a mistake then, you can figure out the approprate response.

As to the rest of your diatribe. It is over dude. This incident is in the past. Why are you so set on maintaining a situation that does not seem to have repeated itself? The legal system has spoken and that was supposed to be the end of it.

As to other opinions voiced by your self and others, they are entitled to them. It doesn't mean they are right or wrong, just that they have a position on it. I stated mine but unlike you, I have been in that situation before. You are welcome to believe whatever you want about it as it carries no weight or impact on anything else. You haven't "been there" so all you can do is monday morning quarterback. Enjoy yourself.

SaburoS · « **Reply #111 on:** April 22, 2003, 03:59:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Saburo,

I had thought that before I made my post I had read in one of yours that the king incident had set law enforcement back and that they had not recovered. That was the reason I put that paragraph you quoted in my post. I went back today and did not see that comment in any posts including yours. I do not know if I made a mistake and atributed it to you or if it was edited out. If it was a mistake I aplogize. If it wasn't a mistake then, you can figure out the approprate response.

I guess you mean this quote:

Quote

It set the image of police officers back to the point that they still haven't recovered.

I didn't type it nor did I infer it in any of my posts. In case you haven't noticed, I try to keep my arguments in this case based on the facts present. I do realize this to be an emotional issue as are many subjects. I try to keep the namecalling out of my arguments as I'm interested in informed (as best we can under the circumstances) discussions regarding the subject at hand lest it develope to childish yelling matches.

As to the rest of your diatribe. It is over dude. This incident is in the past. Why are you so set on maintaining a situation that does not seem to have repeated itself? The legal system has spoken and that was supposed to be the end of it.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but that case was an aberration, a rarity. Yes, I have friends that are cops. Not one of them has been in that type of situation where they had to constantly beat down a suspect like that. Have they been in similar situations where they had to apprehend an uncooperative suspect? You bet. Has it happened often? Not at all. One cop friend of mine was on disability (back injury) off and on for over two years due to a struggle where he and 3 other officers were trying to apprehend a drug crazed suspect. They got him down with-out beating the guy. By far, a majority of suspects give up without a serious fight.
BTW I didn't bring up this case. Just commented on it like everyone else here in this thread.

As to other opinions voiced by your self and others, they are entitled to them. It doesn't mean they are right or wrong, just that they have a position on it. I stated mine but unlike you, I have been in that situation before. You are welcome to believe whatever you want about it as it carries no weight or impact on anything else. You haven't "been there" so all you can do is monday morning quarterback. Enjoy yourself. [/QUOTE]

Unless you were actually there at that scene, you too are being a "monday morning quarterback". With all due respect, I will take the testimony of officers Tim and Melanie Singer, and Briseno as they were there. You weren't, nor was anyone else in this BBS there. Apparently you care enough about what I type, that you feel a need to respond to me.

I'm glad I have your approval to voice my opinion.

What I or anyone else types here (or most any online flight sim BBS for that matter) carries very little to no weight at all in the real world. Get over it.

Just out of curiosity, I guess we should not discuss the Holocaust, the Spanish Inquisition , Japanese massacre of the Chinese, Slavery, The Civil War, WWII, WWI, etc.? After all, we aren't there. After all that was in the past. Right?

I'll continue to voice my opinion as I'll support anyone here to voice their opinion on sensitive subjects.

Sometimes it is better not to forget tragedies so we don't repeat them

Bodhi · « **Reply #112 on:** April 22, 2003, 08:08:57 AM »

I stand by me opinion....

They should have shot him!

midnight Target · « **Reply #113 on:** April 22, 2003, 09:38:31 AM »

The proctologist called... he found your head.

Hortlund · « **Reply #114 on:** April 22, 2003, 10:06:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
The proctologist called... he found your head.

Why did the proctologist call you? You got a thing going on there huh?

Maverick · « **Reply #115 on:** April 22, 2003, 12:28:50 PM »

Ouch Hortlund!!!! Nice shot there and it was well placed too.

Airhead · « **Reply #116 on:** April 22, 2003, 12:47:02 PM »

If the proctologist calls back tell him I'm not in.

funkedup · « **Reply #117 on:** April 22, 2003, 01:20:35 PM »

Rodney should be grateful he wasn't in NYC. He might have ended up playing "toilet plunger spin-the-bottle" back at the station.

I think he he should dedicate himself to helping OJ find the real killers.

Cain't we awl jes git alawng????

midnight Target · « **Reply #118 on:** April 22, 2003, 04:09:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Why did the proctologist call you? You got a thing going on there huh?

As much as I enjoy a good comeback line.. this is the BBS equivalent of "nanner nanner"

You can do better Stevie.