home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.rodney-king
- Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!EE.Stanford.EDU!playfair.Stanford.EDU!budd
- From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
- Subject: Re: just thought
- Message-ID: <1993Jan25.234256.14118@EE.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: usenet@EE.Stanford.EDU (Usenet)
- Organization: Stanford University
- References: <93022.221502U60132@uicvm.uic.edu> <1993Jan24.023309.17172@EE.Stanford.EDU> <1993Jan25.214306.16732@walter.bellcore.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 23:42:56 GMT
- Lines: 66
-
- In article <1993Jan25.214306.16732@walter.bellcore.com> chavis@thumper.UUCP (Dennis Chavis) writes:
- >In article <1993Jan24.023309.17172@EE.Stanford.EDU> budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd) writes:
- >>In article <93022.221502U60132@uicvm.uic.edu> <U60132@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
- >>>Provoked it? Where are you getting this information from?
- >>
- >>
- >>Are you saying that fleeing police, driving at speeds of (at prosecution's
- >>own admittance) 85 mph, and charging officers is not provocation?
- >>
- >>The point is not that he did not provoke a response. The problem
- >>is that the response was inappropriate, to say the least.
- >>--
- >
- >IMHO
- >Granted Rodney was doing some things he should not have been doing.
- >However, something called equal force comes to mind.
- >This means that if Rodney would have had a night stick and was beating on
- >the officers they can use the same force to subdue him.
- >My point being, maybe I missed it, when was he beating up on all those
- >officers? I must have blinked.
-
- Mr. King did not inflict any bodily harm on the police because he was
- tasered before he could. You did not blink.
-
- >It does not matter if he was going 200 mph, the policemans job is to apprehend
- >the fugitive and bring him to justice, not administer his own.
-
- Agreed. That is why we have juries. The number one thing a policeman
- must do IMHO is to uphold the law. The LA cops, in this case, failed
- in this regard. But this was not the point of my post. Your frst statement
- supports my claim. The original poster was claiming that Mr. King
- did NOT provoke a response from the police. In fact, he did
-
- >Even if he had shot 1 of the cops kids that is still his job to bring him to
- >justice. Granted if he shot someone in my family I'd be pissed
- >and would want blood. That is why I am not a cop, I would not be able
- >to follow the rules. However, personal feelings do not excuse a police
- >man from doing his job.
-
- No, they certainly don't. But, like the "defence" offered for the
- rioters, it does make their actions more understandable. Police are
- humans. Humans make mistakes. These cops made a mistake. They ought
- to have been punished.
-
- >More riots will probably continue if shit like that is not halted.
- >What in hell were those jurors thinking about with that verdict?
- >
- The jurors were flim-flammed by fast talking lawyers, that's
- what they were thinking. They saw that damned tape soooo many
- times that theuy were de-sensitised to it.
- My thinking is this. Perhaps Mr. King required a blow of the
- baton to be subdued., Perhaps two. Maybe ten. Buyt the only
- way that those cops were innocent was if _each_and_every_blow_
- was necessary. I cannot believe that any thinking man would agree
- to that. The verdict was a miscarriage oof justice.
-
- >Confused
- >ZZ
- >
-
-
- --
- ! \ ! 1------1
- !\ 1______1 __1__ "And my mind was filled with wonder,
- ! \ 1______1 / ____1____ when the evening headlines read:
- ! ! \ / / 1__|_|__1 'Richard Cory went home last night,
-