[quote=pri_dk][quote]Unlike you, I was there.[/quote]
Yeah, you were “there.” So were you in South Central, or were you in the westside, sitting on the couch and watching it on TV like everyone else in America?
[quote=CA Renter]the blacks threatened to riot[/quote]
“the blacks”
Ok.
[quote]It’s sickening to note that you think the officers were acquitted because “white people are racist” and incapable of determining whether or not a crime has occurred.[/quote]
Given that I’m white myself, your claim is beyond idiotic.
Perhaps you forgot: White people did determine that a crime occurred. The thug cops were convicted by a jury with white people on it.
[quote]There was NO WAY IN HELL those officers were going to get a fair trial the second time around.[/quote]
How was the trial not fair?
Did the cops not get a defense?
Only two blacks on the jury. Several jurors, even white ones, wanted a longer sentence.
Indicted, tried, and convicted by a jury of peers. The very definition of criminal.
But you seem to have a different definition of “criminal” – not based upon the law and the outcome of due process, but simply based upon the profession and/or skin color of the convicted.
So maybe you’re the one that should move – perhaps Mississippi or Alabama? They still have active KKK chapters there. You’d fit right in.[/quote]
ALL of LA was affected, not just South Central. People were going around shooting and vandalizing places all across LA, it was just far more severe in downtown LA. Multiple shots were fired in front of our place at the time, and there was a gang-related murder that occurred just a couple of doors away from us. At the time, I was not living in an “upper-middle class” neighborhood.
Yes, the blacks threatened to riot. They weren’t white, Asian, Hispanic, etc. In case you missed it, there was a clear racial divide here. It doesn’t mean that all blacks rioted, but almost all of the rioters were indeed black.
You, yourself, claimed that the first jury didn’t convict them because they were white. Those are YOUR words, not mine.
But let’s go back to your post here:
[quote=CA renter][quote=pri_dk][quote=zk]A hypothetical is exactly what that is. What you describe is not what happened in this case.
Passing judgement from a civil, air-conditioned office is exactly what you’re doing.[/quote]
The cops were convicted. Looks like I’m not the only one that “passed judgement.”
Oh…the convictions were wrong?
So the legal system is legitimate when it’s beating the crap out of someone on the street, but not when due process is applied in an air-conditioned courtroom?
But let’s get back to the “hypothetical.” Cuz you avoided an answer to my question:
What would you do?
56 baton blows and six kicks
From people trained in the use of force.
Fifty six baton blows.
So when was King supposed to think that the blows were going to stop?
After the first ten?
After the next twenty?
Not exactly “love taps.” Those cops were winding up for each swing!
Ten more blows…we are barely half way there…
“Oh yeah, sure the pain is excruciating, but I’m sure they’ll stop beating me. Probably sometime before I’m dead…”
Since you know the situation so well, the answer should be easy:
What would you have done?[/quote]
The first jury did NOT convict them. The second jury did — and that trial came about as a result of the riots. Blacks all across LA were threatening to riot again if the jury didn’t convict. You think that was a fair trial?
“Four LAPD officers were later tried in a state court for the beating; three were acquitted and the jury failed to reach a verdict for the fourth. The announcement of the acquittals sparked the 1992 Los Angeles riots. A later federal trial for civil rights violations ended with two of the officers found guilty and sent to prison and the other two officers acquitted.”
If the legal system works, based on what you said, then why do you think the first trial wasn’t as valid as the second — the first trial NOT being affected by the emotional rhetoric and rioting that had occurred before the second trial? The jury in the first trial WAS a jury of the officers’ peers and they saw the evidence and didn’t convict. Does the legal system only work when it suits you?
Based on your post here, it looks like you didn’t even know that there was a first trial — and that the jury did NOT convict the officers.
BTW, the second trial was one of the few trials where people were fighting to get on the jury, all because they wanted blood. Under no circumstances was that a fair trial. There was NO chance that those cops were going to be acquitted because thousands of people were preparing to riot if that were to happen, and everybody knew it.
You are a total idiot, Pri. You no nothing about European socialism (you’ve already lost that battle in another thread), and you know nothing about race relations in LA. You also know nothing about this case but, as usual, your lack of knowledge doesn’t stop you from spewing your totally uninformed nonsense.
Once again, you resort to name-calling and personal attacks whenever you find yourself unable to debate intelligently — which happens more often than not.
