|
|
Post by amoeba15 on Aug 25, 2011 15:02:55 GMT -5
Rodney King, whose videotaped beating by police led to the 1992 Los Angeles riots, was charged Wednesday with two misdemeanor counts of driving under the influence, authorities said. "His alcohol content exceeded the legal limit and he was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs," Riverside County Sheriff spokeswoman Courtney Donowho said. On July 12, King was behind the wheel of a 1994 Mitsubishi when he was pulled over in Moreno Valley, California, about 60 miles southeast of Los Angeles. Prosecutors have up to 45 days to file charges on a DUI arrest. According to the police report, a Moreno Valley traffic enforcement unit observed King commit "several traffic violations," Donowho said, although he was not cited for speeding. After questioning King, a patrol officer noticed King exhibiting "signs of behavior that might involve alcohol or drug consumption," she said. King was asked to step out of the car and submit to a voluntary field sobriety test, said Donowho, adding that King was cooperative and compliant. King was arrested and transported to the Moreno Valley Police Department for an evidentiary test to determine the type of substance. Following his release from custody, King told CNN he was under the influence of a medical marijuana prescription but denied being under the influence of alcohol. "I had marijuana in me that I take to deal with migraine headaches and pain in my lower extremities, although I should not have been driving," he said. Earlier this year, in a CNN documentary, King spoke to CNN's Don Lemon about his struggle with alcohol abuse. "I'll always have an issue when it comes to alcohol. My dad was an alcoholic, the addiction part is in my blood," King said. "What I've learned to do is to arrest my -- addiction, arrest it myself, so I don't get arrested." www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/24/california.rodney.king/ |
|
|
|
Post by brewerbruce on Aug 25, 2011 16:03:52 GMT -5
The dude is a loser with a capital L. He was way back when as well, but he didn't deserve to be beaten like he was.
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Aug 26, 2011 10:22:02 GMT -5
If the man would have submitted instead of trying to do a "San Quentin roll" upon the officers(which was visible in the recording), I don't think he would have had a scratch on him, cept some very tight cuff marks.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Aug 26, 2011 10:43:34 GMT -5
They didn't record the entire incident. Just what made the cops look bad.
Rodney King caused what happened, not the other way around.
|
|
|
|
Post by amoeba15 on Aug 26, 2011 11:25:14 GMT -5
IF only cops had tazers then.  |
|
|
|
Post by TW on Aug 26, 2011 14:26:05 GMT -5
I think he would have died from a tazer back then. He was not in good health from what I understand. Including on drugs.
|
|
|
|
Post by amoeba15 on Aug 26, 2011 15:48:19 GMT -5
I think he would have died from a tazer back then. He was not in good health from what I understand. Including on drugs. And this is a bad thing?  Just kidding.   |
|
|
|
Post by brewerbruce on Aug 31, 2011 14:16:06 GMT -5
They didn't record the entire incident. Just what made the cops look bad. Rodney King caused what happened, not the other way around. You can't honestly say that the guy deserved to be beaten within an eyelash of his life for what he did. I didn't say he was lily clean in all this, its just that the cops went way overboard in how they handled it. |
|
|
|
Post by TW on Aug 31, 2011 16:04:17 GMT -5
You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. I don't think you have a clue as to what transpired prior to what was filmed, and are making a judgment based on what you were shown, not necessarily all that happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by brewerbruce on Aug 31, 2011 16:16:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by brewerbruce on Aug 31, 2011 16:21:07 GMT -5
You're right, I wasn't there to witness this nor was anyone else on this board. That cop with the nightstick had a god complex and there is no denying it. The other cops should have pulled this guy back and said enough. I understand that adrenalin gets pumping and you are so pissed off, but that doesn't matter. You need to control that behavior and it was unwarranted.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Aug 31, 2011 17:25:46 GMT -5
I'm reminded of a friend of mine - a fellow police officer - who walked over to a man laying on the ground, and put a bullet in his head.
Of course there were a couple of witnesses to him having done that. It was - as they said - completely wrong.
These "witnesses" saw what they saw. But what they didn't see was what led up to him doing that. Just like the camera and witnesses did not see what led up to the King beating.
Now, back to my friend. He'd stopped a car out on Edens Expressway. He was looking for a car driven by a guy who had just taken two people into the freezer unit of a convenience store, and shot them both in the head. But he'd done that earlier as well, killing one, and wounding another, in another convenience store.
Anyhow, my friend (the cop) didn't realize that he'd stopped the car of the man who committed the murders. He radioed in for a check on registration. In the meantime, the guy jumped out of the car and walked back to the open window of the police car before my friend knew what was happening.
The guy pulled a gun on my friend, and pulled the hammer back. He told him to give him his weapon. My friend said he would, and for him not to panic, and took that moment of hesitation to push back in his seat, and go for his .357.
The guy immediately shot my friend in the left side of his chest.
But, before he could fire again, my friend had his revolver out, and fired several rounds through the drivers side door of the police car, hitting the suspect, who staggered back, and fell down.
My friend, thinking the guy had mortally wounded him, got out of the squad car, and fired a round point blank into the guys forehead.
The last paragraph is "all" the witnesses saw. Not the full event. Just a point of violence by a police officer.
My friend survived. The bullet went in his chest on the left side, rode around his ribs, missing his heart, and came out on the lower right side of his abdomen.
There was a review, and the witnesses. Even though he was exonerated, he always felt that there was a cloud over him. He worried that he might not react as quickly as he did then.
His concern, when the guy shot him, was that the guy was only wounded, and could end up grabbing hostages, or killing someone else to get their car. Even worse, he worried in that split instance that he would be dead, and the guy would gain access to the riot gun, the squad car, and the officers weapon.
But... to those witnesses, they saw the result of what occurred earlier. That's why I say that things happened prior to the video being taken, but way too many people prefer to consider what they saw on the video as all there was.
And tell me how you'd handle this. An enraged man who refuses to submit, and continues to fight against control. A big man, capable of inflicting physical harm on people, even though he's cuffed. A man who is so high on drugs, as King was, that he's totally out of his mind.
Would you reason with him? If you think you can, you're dreaming. You disable them completely, and that usually ends up looking like brutality.
Then there's the Chicago riots when the Democratic Convention was in town. Videos shot of police officers using their night-sticks on poor demonstrators.
That's a crock as well! The people who recorded that were cowering in their shoes safely behind the police lines a few minutes earlier, when those "peaceful protestors" were throwing glass plates like frisbees, along the ground, so they'd shatter into hundreds of missles of glass shards that were injuring police officers, some of who were laying on the ground, because of previous plates.
Not one freaking picture of that, is there? Of course not. The cowards, who take pictures, and talk about brutality, are cowering in the rear, pissing their pants.
Just making a point here. What people "think they saw" is often a lot less than what actually happened. But they still believe they know it all.
|
|
sharpefan
Valuable Player
Guru - Week #17 - 2008, Week # 1, #8, #12, #17 2009
Posts: 3,178
|
Post by sharpefan on Sept 1, 2011 4:55:11 GMT -5
TW makes a good point there is a good moral to the story. Don't believe a thing you hear and only half what you see.  |
|
|
|
Post by brewerbruce on Sept 1, 2011 11:51:30 GMT -5
Yep...you're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by amoeba15 on Sept 1, 2011 12:41:07 GMT -5
Tis what TAZERS are for. I would tazer him to get my attention, tazer him to make sure that he is subdued and tazer him again..just for the heck of it. If I apprehended a child molester, rapist or Republican..I would tazer the person in the nuts. Why Republicans? Cause the last thing that you want Republicans doing, is having more kids. ;D  |
|
