Author Topic: Anybody seen the lovely new LA police video? (Read 3967 times)

Hortlund · « **Reply #165 on:** July 10, 2002, 01:15:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Besides, the jury that freed the King-policemen were not all white.

You are correct. There were however, no Blacks on the jury either.

The point you were making however had to do with the video not being significant enough evidence for conviction. I am saying that if the King trial were not held in a white upper middle class community the verdict would probably have been different.

Please look up the McDonald's case... you may be surprised.

"Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused."

The whole story.

What..no comment on the rest?

Apache · « **Reply #166 on:** July 10, 2002, 01:39:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by dBeav

Oh I get it.
Where's the outrage over a group of punks without a badge that beat people for no reason? No one to sue there so it doesn't matter?
Ya there are cops that are bad. There just people, some are bad some are good. If society as a whole wasn't so fubared to start with we wouldn't need as many cops allowing better screening and training. But since we need a cop on every corner we're gonna have to fill those spots with whoever we can get to do the job. Catch one going too far get rid of him, sure, but don't squeak about the system as a whole. If you go to a doctor that's a hack do you call all doctors hacks? If you find a shady lawyer do you call all lawyers.....ok, that wasn't a good one, but you get my point.
And then there's the whole riot thing, "Oh my, someone I don't know has had an injustice committed to them. I think I will burn my neighbors house and all the businesses in my city because I'm upset." If your that stupid then go ahead. I ain't payin to fix it back up though.

Sorry for all the ranting. (a little)

A group of punks without badges are expected to act with professionalism and courage. A cop with a badge is.

I'm not squeaking about the whole system. Hell, I'm part of the system.

As to riots, I agree with you. I think it may help that the mayor of Inglewood, a black man himself, say's this is not a product of racism but is a rogue cop that needs to go. I believe he is asking for criminal charges.

leonid · « **Reply #167 on:** July 10, 2002, 01:52:03 PM »

hblair,

Interesting thread. I saw your reference to North and South, and it reminded me of something my friend once told me. He's from Cleveland, OH and black, but he has close family relations in the South and has visited them often. One day I asked him if it sometimes seemed that the South was ironically somehow less stressful wrt race. He thought about and said that in many ways it was more relaxed in the South than up North. We talked about it some more, coming to the conclusion that in the South things are much more up front mostly due to the legacy of slavery - almost like two people who had come to blows and after the fight find a new respect. In contrast, the North is much more in denial of their racism, claiming other more 'justifiable' reasons for their discrimination.

Maverick · « **Reply #168 on:** July 10, 2002, 02:15:58 PM »

Lawsuits are not necessarily bad, just like mosquitos aren stinging insects.

Seriously they do lead to changes, some good and some bad. The only REAL thing McDonalds did wrong in the "coffee" suit was to not provide the dumby that burned herself a booklet of rules that educated her on the dangers of placing a cup of coffee between her legs while driving a car. She needed to be told the dangers as she was obviously too stupid to know it on her own. If you mishandle something it is NOT the fualt ot the company of the product you couldn't handle on your own.

(PS my take on that one)

rodney king. The video that was played on the news over and over again was (gasp) not the complete version. It was (gasp) edited and only an excerpt was played by the "unbiased" media. Another thing about that situation was that the jury got more information than was broadcast by the media. As to the jury composition, I believe it is supposed to be a jury of peers of the ACCUSED, not the plaintiff. I don't condone what happened, There were and are better techniques to have been used. I certainly don't condone king's elevation to "victim" and his new wealth either. He had a significant part in that debacle. His activities since are certainly proof of his character.

koala · « **Reply #169 on:** July 10, 2002, 02:44:56 PM »

Quote

Anyway...what happens after the lawsuit midnight? Another classical US warning sign in the class of "caution. HOT, do not pour in knee or over small children", another rant "McD is not responsible for any damages caused by this cup of coffee"? Is that normal to you midnight? I find it f**king retarded.

Stuff like the lawsuits you have in the US wreaks havoc on your economy, and you dont even seem to realize/care. Do you remember a company called Texaco? You dont see that company around much nowadays, do you? Try to find out what happened to that company. (Hint: multi-billion dollar lawsuit over a pissant deal)

The whole lawsuit issue is a joke in the USA, and people with common sense know it. Unfortunately, fewer and fewer Americans use basic common sense these days. All they care about is $$$ for themselves.

It's a shame, and will be the downfall of our country.

Cobra · « **Reply #170 on:** July 10, 2002, 02:53:12 PM »

Let's not forget that videos have also saved some Officers' careers.

There's been cases where folks have accused police officers of sexually harrassing them and assualting them and gone as far as try to press charges and initiate lawsuits, only to be presented with evidence from the Police cruiser's video showing the entire stop and their claims to be scams.

Cobra

midnight Target · « **Reply #171 on:** July 10, 2002, 02:53:46 PM »

What is incredible is that I provide a link to an explanation of the McD lawsuit, and everyone would rather use the Urban legend instead of the facts to make a point. So then here is an exerpt:

Quote

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Eagler · « **Reply #172 on:** July 10, 2002, 03:02:41 PM »

stupid people make the world go round, so do greedy ones & their lawyers

the rest of us just have to pay for them & stay out of their way

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #173 on:** July 10, 2002, 03:08:31 PM »

I've bought plenty of "crack lighters" from various places... you know the ones, the flames like 5 inches high.

Sure wish I was dumb enough that I set my head on fire so I could sue both the company that sold me the lighter, and the company that made the lighter.

3rd degree burns.... I guess that lady didn't have the clue bulb over her head to pull her sweats away from her skin.

Just because a tard wins a lawsuit don't mean it's right.
-SW

midnight Target · « **Reply #174 on:** July 10, 2002, 03:33:22 PM »

wow.

I guess Micky D isn't responsible even though they had over 700 injuries reported. Or because they were aware of the danger, yet did nothing about it. And did you all read that the car was stopped, and that she wasn't the driver? And did you all read that the temp of the water was hot enough to cause instantaneous burns?

nevermind..... sheesh

Hortlund, the "double jeopardy" in the King case is a catchall implemented by the Federal govt. as a way to keep the States that were regularly usurping the rights of its citizens in check. This was much more common back in the bad old days of "seperate but equal". Many people were exonerated of crimes against blacks right up to the 60's without repercussion because of the "good old boy" network in the South (sorry Hb) and other parts of the Country. The Federal law allows this "civil rights" trial to keep the States honest. Obviously George Bush Sr. felt that California had not done its job properly.

Hortlund · « **Reply #175 on:** July 10, 2002, 03:41:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target

Hortlund, the "double jeopardy" in the King case is a catchall implemented by the Federal govt. as a way to keep the States that were regularly usurping the rights of its citizens in check. This was much more common back in the bad old days of "seperate but equal". Many people were exonerated of crimes against blacks right up to the 60's without repercussion because of the "good old boy" network in the South (sorry Hb) and other parts of the Country. The Federal law allows this "civil rights" trial to keep the States honest. Obviously George Bush Sr. felt that California had not done its job properly.

Double jeopardy is always wrong, no matter how you try to motivate it.

Otto · « **Reply #176 on:** July 10, 2002, 03:43:03 PM »

The second trial in the King case was the 'Political' trial. If the 'people' don't get the 'correct' verdict then the Government steps in to make sure they understand the 'errors' of their thinking.

midnight Target · « **Reply #177 on:** July 10, 2002, 03:48:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund

Double jeopardy is always wrong, no matter how you try to motivate it.

So, I guess we should have just let the guilty go free because they were friends of the State prosecutors? (not the King case, but the historical reason for the statute)
C'mon Steve, like you are always saying, It ain't as simple as you think it is.

Thrawn · « **Reply #178 on:** July 10, 2002, 03:51:26 PM »

Around here we have a word for 73 year old gramma's that can't take a third degree burn to the ass, theighs and crotch...and the word is popsicle.

Udie · « **Reply #179 on:** July 10, 2002, 03:54:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target

So, I guess we should have just let the guilty go free because they were friends of the State prosecutors? (not the King case, but the historical reason for the statute)
C'mon Steve, like you are always saying, It ain't as simple as you think it is.

Well personaly I think that yes we should let them go. I was always taught that it's better to let 10 guilty men go free than to convict one inocent man. I grew up thinking this was the way our system worked.

I'm going to catch flames for this next comment. BUT

I was probobly the only person in the USA besides OJ that though he should have been left alone after he was aquitted in criminal court.

To me the civil suit was a perfect example of double jepardy. Same to me with giving jail sentence and a monitary fine for the same crime. Should just be one punishment.

But like everything else in the constitution this too has been turned upside down and re-aranged so that it's nothing like it's supposed to be