Talk:Rodney King

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Are we edit warring about weather the beating was brutal or not? Let's pick bigger battles. (Like the flippant attitude of the article in general, which borders on racism...) HelpJazz 19:00, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I noticed that myself.... I will work on improving this tomorrow. SamuelA 20:03, 5 November 2008 (EST)
Not going to enter the edit war unless I have to, but the article really should mention the beating (whether it was justified or not, there's no doubt that there was a beating, by four police officers, of one guy who was on the ground at the time. That's what caused the uproar, not the arrest). And while underlying factors made the riot possible, and maybe even inevitable, the acquittal was THE triggering event, and should be acknowedged as such.--Frey 09:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Nov 6 changes

As you can see, I pretty much rewrote the article entirely. I will be coming back later to include more sources, as we currently have...... none. SamuelA 13:59, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Ok, I won't revert again, because I don't want to be accused of edit warring. But your continued refusal to accept that the man was beat is mind boggling. How many people are arrested everyday? We don't generally care. The whole point of the King story is that the man beaten severly for several minutes. Why do you continue to gloss over this? SamuelA 14:06, 6 November 2008 (EST)
If you read my edit comments, you will see that I do not disagree that he was beaten. Only two of the officers, however, were convicted. The intro should say he was beaten, but it should not say he was beaten by all four, since two were never convicted.
May God bless you. BHarlan 14:10, 6 November 2008 (EST)
Here is the video. You don't agree he was beaten? The man was down on the ground, and officers (at least two, I didn't count very carefully) hit him with their sticks and kick him with full force. If that's not a beating, then what exactly constitutes a beating? I misread. Carry on... HelpJazz 14:55, 6 November 2008 (EST)
However, the fact that some of the officers didn't physically hit him doesn't mean they weren't part of the beating. Standing there watching your buddies attack someone is, in the eyes of the law, the same as doing it yourself. SamuelA 14:59, 6 November 2008 (EST)
It is clear from your post that you are not a lawyer. They are most certainly not the same under the law.
Furthermore, once you lost an argument ("Did all four men beat him?") you changed the subject ("We can say they "beat" him if they watched him get beaten.") That's just a silly tactic. If you want to add to the article a cited accusation or a conviction for not doing enough to stop a beating, then please do so. BHarlan 15:16, 6 November 2008 (EST)
I've tried to be very patient with you, but I am nearing the end of it. If you want to debate substance of the article and my claims, I'll be happy to do so. However, if you continue to engage in these Ad Hom attacks and childish mocking, I will be happy to engage you on your level. As for what I said, it doesn't matter if I am a lawyer or not (for the record, I am not) As such, I will admit that I am mistaken... While there are several crimes in which bystanders can be charged, I can find no evidence of assualt and battery being one of them. I know that I have heard that police officers can be dismissed for not interceding in police burtality cases, but I have not found anything concrete yet. However, I will continue. SamuelA 15:38, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I do not see what is "Ad Hom" about my remarks. You said something about the law. I pointed out how it was very obviously false. If that hurts your feelings, then you should avoid making assertions in fields about which you know little, such as criminal law.

You have substantially improved this article. I hope you will continue to do so.

One way might be to note if the officers who were not convicted were dismissed anyway. BHarlan 15:43, 6 November 2008 (EST)

"It is clear from your post that you are not a lawyer." "once you lost an argument ("Did all four men beat him?") you changed the subject ("We can say they "beat" him if they watched him get beaten.") That's just a silly tactic." "If that hurts your feelings, then you should avoid making assertions in fields about which you know little, such as criminal law." Not only would I consider those personal attacks, they're also rather patronizing. Don;t you have racist articles to edit anyway? SamuelA 15:46, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I will not engage with you (on this page) about what you consider personal attacks and what I consider your oversensitivity. This page is for discussion of the Rodney King article. I will happily discuss that.

If you think it is racist, I hope you will say how, instead of wiki-accusing me of racism.

Nonetheless, I will turn the other cheek. WWJD? BHarlan 15:56, 6 November 2008 (EST)

HelpJazz, can you define "beating"? For example, suppose you and two other liberals assault me, and in self-defense I fight back by punching and kicking you until one runs away, one gives up, and the other falls into unconsciousness. Have I then administered a beating? Am I then legally (or even ethically) in the wrong?

In your answer, please pay attention to the distinction between words like "fighting" and "violence" and "assault" and "self-defense". You might review the article on Use of force first. --Ed Poor Talk 11:12, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Lack of depth

The article touches on but fails to explore the issue of how much force is appropriate when arresting someone.

It also fails to quote even one person who claimed the police were using excessive force. This makes the riots inexplicable. Why were they rioting?

Is there an additional issue? Did rioters believe that any rough treatment by police is too much? Or were the riots the result of decades of pent-up rage over police brutality? --Ed Poor Talk 11:09, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Personal tools