[quote=pri_dk]Let’s take a step back to where all this began. My initial post on the video was a response to the claim that the whole video “tells a different story” than the shorter version that the media repeatedly played. Having never seen the whole video, I decided to watch it. I don’t see much additional information.[/quote]
You don’t see much additional information? See, right there, that, to me, shows your confirmation bias. If you don’t think that King jumping up and charging the officers is much additional information, then I don’t think you’re looking at it clearly.
[quote=pri_dk]
What’s interesting in your statements above is that you consistently add information that is not in the video. “He threw two officers off his back …”, he was “twice as strong as [the officers]”
If the video tells the whole truth,…[/quote]
Show me where I said the video tells the whole truth. You’re making that up.
[quote=pri_dk]
then why do we need to use police report statements (statements made by convicted criminals and their cohorts) and speculation about how strong someone was?[/quote]
Statements made by convicted criminals? Please. You yourself said:
Wanna know why the two trials had different outcomes? It’s real simple:
Unlike the Simi Valley jury, the federal jury was racially mixed. Although the defense made a considerable effort to exclude African-Americans, two blacks were seated as jurors.
You assume that whites must be unable to see the cops as guilty. Have you considered that maybe it’s the other way around? Maybe blacks are unable to see them as innocent.
Also, the police reports were corroborated by all present officers. Including the ones who aren’t “convicted criminals.”
In any case, your attempt to dismiss entirely the police reports because some of those present were convicted in one out of two trials shows the weakness of your arguments.
The part about him being twice as strong as you is speculation, but it’s informed speculation. In any case, my arguments are pretty much the same without that speculation. He was clearly very strong. Strong enough to throw two men off his back. If he’s strong enough to throw two men off his back, I’m not going to bet my life that he’s not strong enough to get my gun from me. Especially if there other techniques – techniques I’ve been trained to use – that are available and less risky. Even if those techniques will result in injuries to this person who is trying to attack me.
[quote=pri_dk]It’s interesting that you speculate that King was “twice as strong” as the officers (that’s pretty darn strong!) but ignore that fact that he was outnumbered five to one. King must have had some sort of superhuman powers if your interpretation were to be true. [/quote]
Twice as strong as the officers isn’t superhuman. And I’m not ignoring the fact that he was outnumbered. See below (where I respond to what you’d have done).
[quote=pri_dk]
Being a cop, especially in a large city, is a dangerous job. Everybody knows this. Anyone who doesn’t want to deal with dangerous situations shouldn’t be a cop. It’s that simple. [/quote]
Anyone who doesn’t want to deal with dangerous situations shouldn’t be a cop. I agree with that. But you go on to say, “It’s that simple,” as if there’s no spectrum of dangerous situations. Driving a car is a dangerous situation. So is opening a can of tuna, for that matter. How dangerous a situation should a cop be required to put himself in? That’s not a simple question at all. And perhaps our ideas of how dangerous a situation a cop should be required to put himself in differ. Or maybe our ideas of how dangerous it would have been to approach King in a different manner differ. But to say it’s “simple” is, well, simple.
[quote=pri_dk]
The notion that “I was in danger I can beat the shit out of people no questions asked” is ridiculous. Everyone should be accountable, especially people who are given the power to kill.[/quote]
That is a ridiculous notion. And not one I ever espoused.
[quote=pri_dk]
So what would I have done? The answer is simple. I would have stopped hitting him when he was on the ground. I would have jumped on his back with two or more other officers when he was down to hold him in place (nobody is going to get up with 400+ pounds of weight on their back.) I also would not have kicked six times (is kicking someone when they are down part of police training?)
[/quote]
You haven’t been paying attention at all. He did get up with 400+ pounds of weight on his back.
I don’t know if kicking someone when they’re down is part of police training. But “down” isn’t as simple as you make it out to be. If they’re telling him to lie face down and put his hands behind his head and he’s rolling around on the ground in contradiction to his orders, and he’s just gotten through throwing two officers off his back, and just gotten up and charged them, then maybe it’s not a bad idea.
[quote=pri_dk]
What I would have done is a lot more credible than your answer: “I would lay down and let them beat me.” But maybe you have some extraordinary tolerance for pain…[/quote]
There you go making stuff up again. Every time you make something up, it exposes the weakness of your arguments. I never said “I would lay down and let them beat me.” I said “I wouldn’t have thrown two officers off my back, then got up and charged them. I wouldn’t have continued to move around. Then I wouldn’t have gotten 56 baton blows.” I would have immediately and fully complied. And they wouldn’t have beat me. And if they had, in that situation, then they’d deserve to go to jail. But that wasn’t what happened.
[quote=pri_dk]And if I genuinely thought he had a weapon or my life was in danger, I would have shot him. It’s a touch ironic, but shooting him would have been a more logical course of action if there was really any threat.[/quote]
You present two scenarios, neither of which is true. He didn’t have a weapon and, as far as I know, no one suspected that he did. The officers’ lives weren’t in danger, as long as they didn’t let him get into a position where he could get a gun. So, to try to get on top of him with another officer (already proven ineffective) would put your life at risk, in which case you’d have had to shoot him. Looking at it that way, the cops saved his life by trying to get him to fully comply (lie face down on the ground and put his arms behind his head) by beating him.
[quote=pri_dk]These cops weren’t scared, they were mad. And they decided to act out their anger by inflicting a little “street justice.” Those that do should that should go to jail.[/quote]
I agree that those who engage in street justice should be criminally charged. But I wouldn’t agree that that’s what happened in this case.
