Talk:Rodney King

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)