Everyone shocked that Morty managed to somehow reference pedophila in his defense of the police here, raise your hand.

You're such a fish. :>

Neither the law nor society expects policemen to be automatons (not to mention that that, too, can have is dire consequences).

Assuming you were responding to me, that means it's ok for a cop to go into a rage and beat someone, then say 'Oops, I really lost it back there, oh well, it was only for a minute or two.'?

If I am in an emotional state the prevents by brain from overriding my impulse control for one minute and I shoot someone then I have committed a crime.

Is shooting someone in self-defense a crime? (I don't want to make this about semantics: either it's not a crime or it's a crime that is excused, but the result is the same.)

Is this what you are saying? Or are you trying to argue something else? The cops were so full of adrenaline that their internal definition of excessive force was not functioning, so therefore the force used wasn't excessive?

I'm saying that there are circumstances under which no human being could be expected to make the distinction within a matter of 1-2 minutes. I am not sure whether these represent extreme enough circumstances. I'm not ashamed to say that the amount of information available to me still leaves that an open question: I see arguments that a police officer should have known, even in such an extreme situation, and I also see arguments that a police officer couldn't reasonably have been expected to know.

It's very frustrating to have people keep distorting my position as if I'm insisting the officers were in the right. I'm saying that it's possible (just possible, not even likely) that men behaving to the best of their ability could have made a reasonable judgment under these circumstances given the information available to them and a legitimate emotional state for a police officer in those circumstances.

When I watch the video, my emotional response is that the police are behaving monstrously. When I consider the entire event in context, I'm not so sure. There are things that appear monstrous out of context, yet are reasonable, and this simply might be one of those things. And there are gaps in my knowledge and (barring some sort of inside information) the knowledge of every single poster on this thread that make it unreasonable to simply conclude that this absolutely isn't one of those things.

Is shooting someone in self-defense a crime?

No, but beating a guy that's prostrate on the ground while surrounded by you and 5 of your best friends is.

It's very frustrating to have people keep distorting my position as if I'm insisting the officers were in the right. I'm saying that it's possible (just possible, not even likely) that men behaving to the best of their ability could have made a reasonable judgment under these circumstances given the information available to them and a legitimate emotional state for a police officer in those circumstances.

To be clear, I am harping on you because I want to make sure I understand what exactly you are saying. I am trying not to misinterpret anything and then we argue over what I said about what you said akjsdhfkjlasdhflkjashfjkhsadf.

Per your quote: No. I do not think it is too much to expect a trained police officer (we are not talking about civilians or public safety, we are discussing trained officers) to be able to pause after 30 seconds or so and accurately assess the situation at that point in time and conclude that while King may have rolled over or tried to sit up (because he was for sure moving) he was not a threat. The reason I say that without a doubt is because there are multiple officers on the scene who did exactly that and stopped hitting King and/or actively called out for their fellow officers to stop hitting him. Don't forget, at the very start of the whole thing when the officer approached with a gun drawn she was instantly called back and ordered to holster the weapon. That was a split second decision where an officer recognized a valid threat and did something to stop it. The same thing could have, and should have, happened before the beating got to the 1:45 mark. That is a LONG time to be hitting someone as hard as you can.

No, but beating a guy that's prostrate on the ground while surrounded by you and 5 of your best friends is.

How much resistance does someone have to show before you're allowed a minute of latitude in a reasonably extreme emotional state to make sure they're really incapacitated? How many baton strikes would have been reasonable under the circumstances, in your opinion? How much time should a human being, even a well-trained human being, have to ratchet down the emotion from "this guy is dangerous" to "this guy is contained"?

If the answer is zero seconds, then I think that's completely unrealistic, and if the answer isn't zero seconds, then I think the time period is imprecise enough that 1-2 minutes might be within the bounds of reasonable.

I'm saying that it's possible (just possible, not even likely) that men behaving to the best of their ability could have made a reasonable judgment under these circumstances given the information available to them and a legitimate emotional state for a police officer in those circumstances.

And (most) everyone else is saying that viewing all given evidence, including videotape, denies that possibility utterly. The position in opposition to yours is that simple.


If the answer is zero seconds, then I think that's completely unrealistic, and if the answer isn't zero seconds, then I think the time period is imprecise enough that 1-2 minutes might be within the bounds of reasonable.

We're not talking meteorological time here. The difference between zero seconds and 100 seconds in regards to the effect of a group beating a man with nightsticks is not imprecise, nor negligible. It is not reasonable at all to think it is negligible. Again (and again and again) this is not one man, scared, beating one other man. Or two men, scared - it is large group of men, all armed, and many acting in concert. To say that there is a imprecise time here between zero and 100 seconds where it is reasonable to keep beating a man who is down is simply not sound.

Per your quote: No. I do not think it is too much to expect a trained police officer (we are not talking about civilians or public safety, we are discussing trained officers) to be able to pause after 30 seconds or so and accurately assess the situation at that point in time and conclude that while King may have rolled over or tried to sit up (because he was for sure moving) he was not a threat.

Fair enough. I think the difference between pausing at 30 seconds and pausing at 90 seconds is a small enough difference to be worth consideration. I'm not saying 90 seconds can't possibly be too long. I'm saying that it's a small enough difference to be worth serious consideration, and that reasonable minds might well disagree.

I'm being cast as some outrageous shill for the police because I think it's possible that a well-trained officer under the circumstances might be imperfect enough to make a judgment that was reasonable under the circumstances but is unreasonable with the benefit of hindsight and emotional detachment for a 60-second window.

If you think it's a ten minute beating, then sure, it's outrageous, but it wasn't ten minutes. If you think that no use of batons was justified, then sure, it's outrageous, but it sure seems to me that batons were justified. If you think the police fabricated the earlier resistance in the reports and lied under oath, then sure, it's outrageous, but that's a pretty strong accusation (even if Powell is a racist).

The reason I say that without a doubt is because there are multiple officers on the scene who did exactly that and stopped hitting King and/or actively called out for their fellow officers to stop hitting him.

And after a relatively brief period, the officers stopped.

Don't forget, at the very start of the whole thing when the officer approached with a gun drawn she was instantly called back and ordered to holster the weapon. That was a split second decision where an officer recognized a valid threat and did something to stop it.

That's a bit different, because it was prior to King throwing off the swarm, striking one of the officers, and resisting two taser shots. I think that is indeed something in Koon's favor: I think he may have saved King's life by ordering Singer to holster that weapon. If King lunged at one of the officers with a drawn gun, that's almost certainly a shooting.

The same thing could have, and should have, happened before the beating got to the 1:45 mark. That is a LONG time to be hitting someone as hard as you can.

If you're trying to incapacitate the joints to prevent him from getting up, and he keeps moving? I don't know that it's so long.

Assuming you were responding to me, that means it's ok for a cop to go into a rage and beat someone, then say 'Oops, I really lost it back there, oh well, it was only for a minute or two.'?

<insert smileycon of your choice> The answer is maybe so, for some people, and those people might be on the jury, and they get to decide, just as if you were on the jury you would have gotten to decide. Moreover, maybe, that juror would not have seen the situation as frivolous as you do. He might have thought that King acted like a frigging homicidal lunatic in the full throes of his insane rage, and that corresponding degree of passion was called for by the police--and that you can't just turn those things on and off. You, on the other hand, as juror might not have thought so. Much would have depended on the warp and woof of the evidence, including how the witnesses presented themselves. By most accounts, Koon in that first trial came across very well.

You weren't there, and neither was I. Those that were should be granted deference. When they render a not guilty verdict, that deference is total and not reviewable. There's a reason for that--in legal theory, but also as a matter of practical validation: they are there; we are not.

You might consider that King was lucky Singer didn't shoot him at the outset when he made that move to his back pocket. (Reginald Denny was not the recipient of such largesse.) You might also consider that just as for soldiers in war, police officers in the line of duty, also faced with extreme violence might find that pumped-up rage can serve a purpose--and might be hard to turn on and off. And jurors might cut those officers some slack on that score. Of course, that is very fact-oriented, as well as juror-oriented.

How much resistance does someone have to show before you're allowed a minute of latitude in a reasonably extreme emotional state to make sure they're really incapacitated?

Crosbybird, most of us think that during the time you need to make that assessment, you shouldn't be beating the guy. If you are unsure of whether he is incapacitated, you protect yourself and evaluate the situation. You don't keep beating him.

How many baton strikes would have been reasonable under the circumstances, in your opinion?

You're asking for false precision. Maybe the answer is 2. Maybe it's 7. It's clearly a lot fewer than the number that were used, based on the video evidence.

How much time should a human being, even a well-trained human being, have to ratchet down the emotion from "this guy is dangerous" to "this guy is contained"?

I am not willing to grant you the "this guy is dangerous" assumption. The guy was big. The guy was drunk. The guy could take a taser hit without going down. But I've yet to see any evidence that he made a dangerous move towards the gang of thugs who decided to beat him unconscious.

Don't forget, at the very start of the whole thing when the officer approached with a gun drawn she was instantly called back and ordered to holster the weapon. That was a split second decision where an officer recognized a valid threat and did something to stop it.

The point you evade, though, is that this called for discretion, a discretion that whichever way it went called for deference (considering the facts, which includes an appreciation of atmosphere). If Koon had not stopped Singer and she had shot King, what would you say then?

You weren't there, and neither was I. Those that were should be granted deference. When they render a not guilty verdict, that deference is total and not reviewable. There's a reason for that--in legal theory, but also as a matter of practical validation: they are there; we are not.

Well, seeing as the verdict WAS reviewed I find it hard to believe your claim that the not guilty verdict was in fact not reviewable.

You might consider that King was lucky Singer didn't shoot him at the outset when he made that move to his back pocket. (Reginald Denny was not the recipient of such largesse.)

That's right, I forgot, King was LUCKY he wasn't shot. Sorry, I forgot.

You might also consider that just as for soldiers in war, police officers in the line of duty, also faced with extreme violence might find that pumped-up rage can serve a purpose--and might be hard to turn on and off. And jurors might cut those officers some slack on that score. Of course, that is very fact-oriented, as well as juror-oriented.

Mm-hmm, it can also lead to officers full of pumped-up rage firing their entire clip and killing their own men. But hey, we should cut the cop some slack, I mean that other cop was clearly asking for it.

If you are unsure of whether he is incapacitated, you protect yourself and evaluate the situation. You don't keep beating him.

Not necessarily at all. If a dangerous person isn't incapacitated, you continue trying to incapacitate him. The issue is whether he was incapacitated or not. If the jury felt he had not been, they would not have found the officers guilty. If the jury feels he was incapacitated, that, though, doesn't dispose of the issue of whether the cops conduct was excusable. They are not held to a standard of having to act in every way perfect.

Too, that video isn't the end-all be-all when it comes to legal evidence.

If Koon had not stopped Singer and she had shot King, what would you say then?

This depends on a lot of things. Are you assuming King was struggling with Singer when the gun went off? Did she shoot him while he was 10 feet away? Was he telling her he was going to grab her gun and kill her? Did she properly warn him? If she shot him because he would not lie down then I would find fault in her actions. Again, I have agreed with the initial use of force. But it became excessive. Simple as that.

That's right, I forgot, King was LUCKY he wasn't shot. Sorry, I forgot.

Right. The idea that King deserved what he got and was lucky to not get more is obscene.

If a dangerous person isn't incapacitated, you continue trying to incapacitate him.

Crosby was talking about the situation where you are unsure whether the person is incapacitated. Specficially, we are talking about the Rodney King beating, where after a certain point he posed no immediate danger to the multiple police officers standing around him and they could have stopped to evaluate the situation and determine whether more force was necessary. It doesn't matter precisely when that point came. It came and went and they continued to beat him.

214:

You're just huffing and puffing on your overweening sense of righteousness now.

But, yes, if you like all those things are possible--that's what is to be decided--and it is not to be decided out of hand as a matter of first impression based on incomplete evidence, which is what that video is.

When I watch the video, my emotional response is that the police are behaving monstrously. When I consider the entire event in context, I'm not so sure.

I'm perfectly willing to state that the officers did no wrong when:

1: They tasered King the 1st time

2: They tasered him the 2nd time

3: When he got back up after being tasered the 2nd time and was clubbed in the head (note, the taser did not have "no" effect as many have claimed, but arguably was insufficient, most people go down, or stop all resistance with 1- but Cops will typically use it up to 3 times.

4: Even though the club to the head effectively put King down for good, he was still trying to get up it seems, so maybe the next 10 or so blows...

5: and ???

We still have 40+ blows to go, against a guy who is both surrounded and lying on the ground

You're asking for false precision. Maybe the answer is 2. Maybe it's 7. It's clearly a lot fewer than the number that were used, based on the video evidence.

Quite the opposite. I'm claiming that there isn't a precise number of acceptable blows (and you seem to agree).

"Clearly" is obviously the point of disagreement. It's clear to a person watching the video under stress-free conditions. I'm not convinced that it's clear to a reasonably-behaving police officer under those circumstances. There must be at least some difference in the standard for reasonableness for those two observers.

I am not willing to grant you the "this guy is dangerous" assumption. The guy was big. The guy was drunk. The guy could take a taser hit without going down. But I've yet to see any evidence that he made a dangerous move towards the gang of thugs who decided to beat him unconscious.

In the video, King makes a move in the direction of one of the officers (right before the baton blow that knocked him down). In the police report and/or testimony, it was claimed that King struck one of the officers.

That may not be evidence that is convincing to you, but it is evidence.

Right. The idea that King deserved what he got and was lucky to not get more is obscene.

And you know obscenity when you see it, right, Potter Stewart?

This depends on a lot of things. Are you assuming King was struggling with Singer when the gun went off? Did she shoot him while he was 10 feet away? Was he telling her he was going to grab her gun and kill her? Did she properly warn him? If she shot him because he would not lie down then I would find fault in her actions. Again, I have agreed with the initial use of force. But it became excessive. Simple as that.

Of course it depend on a lot of things, but stick with what happened. Read the factual scenario again. All you know is he goes for his back pocket, and she pulls her gun. If she had shot him before Koon said anything based on her appreciation that he was going for a weapon, what saith you?

You're such a fish. :>

Nice try. It's not reasonable to grant you the subtlety required.

It doesn't matter precisely when that point came. It came and went and they continued to beat him.

Even that were true, that doesn't dispose of the issue of guilt. The law does not expect cops to act with surgical precision. It would still depend on the jury making a decision on how it appreciates the situation. It's not cut and dry, even if you could show he was incapacitated, and you could show the cops knew this--all of which is dicey as pinpointing to the exact moment, much less what is deemed okay beyond that moment..

Read the factual scenario again. All you know is he goes for his back pocket, and she pulls her gun.

As Singer ordered King to get his hands where she could see them, King--according to Singer's testimony--"grabbed his right buttock with his right hand and he shook it at me." King finally complied with Singer's order to lie on the ground. As she drew close to King with her gun drawn to make the arrest, Sergeant Koon shouted, "Stand back. Stand back. We'll handle this." Koon would later say he intervened because he thought the use of guns was "a lousy tactic" that would probably result either in the death of King or the CHP officers.

All I know is you are trolling.

--"grabbed his right buttock with his right hand and he shook it at me."

This sounds more like he broke into dancing to a popular EU song.

The idea that King deserved what he got and was lucky to not get more is obscene.

I never once said that. In fact, I believe that I made it clear that King didn't deserve what he got, but if not, I'm making it clear now. There is something between what King deserved and police brutality.

4: Even though the club to the head effectively put King down for good, he was still trying to get up it seems, so maybe the next 10 or so blows...

5: and ???

We still have 40+ blows to go, against a guy who is both surrounded and lying on the ground

In the video I linked, King is prone at 0:43. The police swing at his legs around 10-20 times for about 15 seconds. Over the next 30-40 seconds, they swing at King's arms and legs, and kick him to (ostensibly) roll him into the prone position. There are very few baton strikes when King is lying prone; nearly all of them are responding to movement.

Based on King's prior resistance, it seems possible to me for the police to have considered him a potential threat until he stopped resisting entirely. Was that movement resistance? Should the police have known with certainty that it wasn't in those 30-40 seconds? I'm not sure about that.

Based on King's prior resistance, it seems possible to me for the police to have considered him a potential threat until he stopped resisting entirely. Was that movement resistance? Should the police have known with certainty that it wasn't in those 30-40 seconds? I'm not sure about that.

And it's ok to have a difference of opinion as we clearly do here. Good discussion was had (for the most part) all around.

I never once said that.

No, you did not.

The law does not expect cops to act with surgical precision...all of which is dicey as pinpointing to the exact moment, much less what is deemed okay beyond that moment.

I understand what you are saying, but nobody is asking for surgical precision. As #220 said, whether or not the 1st or 2nd or 10th baton blows were excessive, it is clear that the 56th, 55th, and 54th blows were.

In the video, King makes a move in the direction of one of the officers (right before the baton blow that knocked him down). In the police report and/or testimony, it was claimed that King struck one of the officers.

And if we grant this "move in the direction of the officers" what, exactly, is the harm in the officers moving out of his way and letting him stumble around drunk while they follow him from a distance until he gets tired of it? He wasn't driving any more.

Like MCoA upthread, I had been avoiding this one. Glad to have read it now, as it seems to mark some weird warp in the nature of the Universe where Ray and Sam agree.

Maybe not so weird after all. There is a distrust of police powers that properly unites the right and the left. And the center too for that matter, but there is a certain kind of centrist who basically trusts the police to do what's right. I've known lots of individual cops who were highly professional and do indeed know what's right. But cops sometimes do very bad things, and should not be exonerated because they're cops and we must support our police unquestioningly. In a free country, you have a right, maybe even an obligation, to be skeptical of government power, at least till you're really sure it's not being abused.

But cops sometimes do very bad things, and should not be exonerated because they're cops and we must support our police unquestioningly.

I think the bigger problem is the good cops supporting, and even covering up the crimes of, the bad cops simply because they are also cops.

But cops sometimes do very bad things, and should not be exonerated because they're cops and we must support our police unquestioningly. In a free country, you have a right, maybe even an obligation, to be skeptical of government power, at least till you're really sure it's not being abused.

This is all true. However, when cops become defendants, they are entitled to all the legal presumptions that accrue to the benefit of defendants under the law. What's also true is we need cops to act decisively and effectively. That leaves us where in cases where the two converge? Where juries decide, I suppose--just like they did here. One decided one way; another another way. And the system and society approves of defendants having representation--someone with expertise making their case. Some here need to keep that in mind, too.

Maybe not so weird after all. There is a distrust of police powers that properly unites the right and the left.

The internet right and left, anyway. In the real USA most people on the "right" worship law enforcement and the military, and although a lot of people on the "left" distrust police powers, a large proportion of Democratic voters are white women who are way more afraid of crime than they are of anything the police might do.

Speaking of uncalled for violence and an oppressed group

There are facts and there is the weighing and assessing of those facts.

I know it's two days in a row of me responding to one of your posts in a way that isn't really responsive at all...

But I never miss (or miss creating?) an opportunity to post my favourite comedy sketch of all time. This time a two-for-one deal!

"There's language. And there's speech. There's chess. And there's a game of chess. Mark the difference for me. Mark it please!"

That is a nice routine, whether it's meant to be a slur on what is quoted or not. I have to say that the Wooster/Jeeves series, which I've only recently seen episodes of, that Laurie and Fry did was both amusing and also surprisingly authentic (although Fry was really too young at the time to play Jeeves). Laurie was even brilliant at times

235:

Many of us elites here don't realize that most of the canaille (French version, not Cajun French use) do not much come in contact with the police at all in there lives, except maybe in minor negative way (parking/speeding ticket) or a minor positive way (BBQ tickets for orphans).

And, yes, women, especially white women, have little to fear from police or authority. The system is so stacked in their favor, they can't help sense that to prevail all they must do is maintain a decorous mumness in the face of authority. You might say they're pretty damn canaille (Cajun version).

And if we grant this "move in the direction of the officers" what, exactly, is the harm in the officers moving out of his way and letting him stumble around drunk while they follow him from a distance until he gets tired of it? He wasn't driving any more.

If he's only going to stumble around drunk, pretty much none except potentially to himself. If he's going to take a swing at one of the officers, perhaps a little bit of harm. If he manages to actually grab an officer, maybe a bit more. If he had a weapon, even more. With the benefit of hindsight, and detachment from the stress of the situation, it's perfectly clear that he represented little to no risk to the officers by the time the tape starts.

What I'm saying is that the police might not reasonably be expected to realize that in such a short window under those circumstances.

That is a nice routine, whether it's meant to be a slur on what is quoted or not.

It certainly wasn't meant that way!

It's funny, one of the things Stephen Fry constantly laments is that he was always cast as older men, even as a university student. He likes to say he was born a 50 year old man. He'd probably really appreciate your take on his Jeeves.

If I am in an emotional state the prevents by brain from overriding my impulse control for one minute and I shoot someone then I have committed a crime.

Bingo. There's a huge double standard with respect to police. If a real person "makes a mistake" or does something he doesn't realize is illegal, he gets prosecuted; for cops those are treated as excuses.

What I'm saying is that the police might not reasonably be expected to realize that in such a short window under those circumstances.

The window was not short.

Crosby, if you want to feel how long it is to be beaten senseless for "only a minute or two," step in the ring with Mike Tyson (or whoever is big these days - Floyd Mayweather) and see how long that "short window" feels.

Crosby, if you want to feel how long it is to be beaten senseless for "only a minute or two," step in the ring with Mike Tyson (or whoever is big these days - Floyd Mayweather) and see how long that "short window" feels.

Hey, at least they wear gloves, and they'll stop when you hit the deck unconscious.

A minute is a really long time when you're beating the crap out of someone. Like a really, really long time.

A minute is a really long time when you're beating the crap out of someone. Like a really, really long time.

Yes, and, Crosby, if you've ever seen a real fistfight, it's a few seconds and then it's over. I realize in James Bond films the scene lasts 10 minutes as they crack bottles over each other's heads and toss each other over tables and into shelves as the fight spills over into multiple rooms, but really an actual fight is pretty short.

The window was not short.

There's no question that it's a short window. We're talking about less than 2 minutes.

There's only a question of whether is was short enough to mentally regroup in that particular situation and recognize that King wasn't a threat.

Crosby, if you want to feel how long it is to be beaten senseless for "only a minute or two," step in the ring with Mike Tyson (or whoever is big these days - Floyd Mayweather) and see how long that "short window" feels.

Why don't you? Or more appropriately, why don't you try to control a potentially dangerous criminal who is strong enough and determined enough to throw off a swarm of trained police officers, and then maintain resistance after two taser shots? See what your mental state is, see how fearless you are and how rationally detached you are from the situation.

I'm not suggesting that there's a line after which any sort of behavior for any length of time is acceptable. I am suggesting that there is a line after which extreme behavior for some length of time is acceptable. I'm not sure that this behavior was too extreme or that it was too long given a reasonably expected emotional state for these police officers.

There's a huge double standard with respect to police. If a real person "makes a mistake" or does something he doesn't realize is illegal, he gets prosecuted; for cops those are treated as excuses.

Some might argue that we are asking police officers to place themselves in situations that a "real person" would practically never encounter, and that those situations demand a certain amount of additional latitude.

I would not advocate any weaker standard for police than I would for a civilian in a similarly stressful situation. In fact, I would suggest that police training holds officers to a higher standard. That said, they're still human beings, and I don't think it's reasonable to hold them to a perfect standard.

I'm not suggesting that there's a line after which any sort of behavior for any length of time is acceptable. I am suggesting that there is a line after which extreme behavior for some length of time is acceptable. I'm not sure that this behavior was too extreme or that it was too long given a reasonably expected emotional state for these police officers.

Injuries sustained by Rodney king:
nine skull fractures
a shattered eye socket
a shattered cheekbone
a broken leg
a concussion
injuries to both knees
nerve damage that left his face partially paralyzed

Injuries suffered by the policemen:
Tennis elbow

Res ipsa loquitur

Yes, and, Crosby, if you've ever seen a real fistfight, it's a few seconds and then it's over. I realize in James Bond films the scene lasts 10 minutes as they crack bottles over each other's heads and toss each other over tables and into shelves as the fight spills over into multiple rooms, but really an actual fight is pretty short.

I've never seen a real fistfight where more than a few punches were thrown. Either one person is so dominant that the fight ends in a matter of seconds, or people step in and stop it.

Real fights are rarely controlled enough to be fistfights anyway. Pretty much every fight (uninterrupted) ends up in some sort of grapple.

Why don't you? Or more appropriately, why don't you try to control a potentially dangerous criminal who is strong enough and determined enough to throw off a swarm of trained police officers, and then maintain resistance after two taser shots? See what your mental state is, see how fearless you are and how rationally detached you are from the situation.

Well, am I, with no police training, trying to control him alone? Or do I, a trained police officer, have a number of other trained officers on the scene with me trying to control him?

It doesn't wash, Crosby, because when he is kneeling or lying on the ground, the "controlling" has been successful.

Then they just keep wailing away at him anyway.

Crosby, I don't generally wade into these kinds of threads, and I'm not going to waste extra time here with multiple posts, but you seem to be a thoughtful sort... I can't state this strongly enough: YOU ARE GIVING TOO MUCH SLACK TO THE POLICE IN THIS SITUATION. Taking all the context into account, you are giving them much, much too much slack. It is very important that police protect themselves from harm. But it is, in a civil and democratic society, categorically more important that they not abuse their harmful and lethal powers when doing so. I don't care how jacked up the officers were at that moment, the essential part of their job, what we as citizens expect of them in response to handing them lethal force, is that they fight against that emotion rather than take it out on the perp.

This is not a "perfect standard" to hold them to. A "perfect standard", as many others have indicated upthread, would be to suggest that they stop using the batons *immediately* after King hits the ground. Your concept that their emotional state at, say, 15 seconds into the beating is in any way a reason we should go easy on the police for continuing to beat the crap out of the guy for a further full minute is... wrong. Just wrong. It's textbook excessive force.

There's no question that it's a short window. We're talking about less than 2 minutes.

Your interpretation of "short window", temporally - in regards to the event in question - is simply invalid. In fact...

I've never seen a real fistfight where more than a few punches were thrown. Either one person is so dominant that the fight ends in a matter of seconds, or people step in and stop it.

OMG YES EXACTLY. So why do you keep stating that here, when there is fight, a confrontation, that utter dominance by one side is reasonable for almost 2 minutes? Given other fights you've seen, how is THIS one excusable, acceptable, possible for that time? How is nearly two minutes a short window when all other fights - you know, ones involving no crowd, like this one - end in about 15 seconds?

Please, if you respond to nothing else, I beg you, make me understand this one.

Many here keep referring to the "police" overreacting. I ask: do you literally mean that? Or by police, do you mean Powell?

248:

What's your source for those damages?

Your concept that their emotional state at, say, 15 seconds into the beating is in any way a reason we should go easy on the police for continuing to beat the crap out of the guy for a further full minute is... wrong.

I don't want to "go easy" on the police. I want to "go appropriate" on the police.

I don't have police training, and I've never been in a situation that is remotely close to the stress level that these officers faced that night. That's telling me that I don't really know what is appropriate. I read the police reports, and I read some of the testimony of the officers. This doesn't look to me like officers that wanted an excuse to severely beat King, but officers that did everything reasonably possible to avoid using their batons in the first place.

Does that mean that there's no chance that the officers became unreasonable once the batons were drawn? Absolutely not. Does it mean that they might have remained reasonable people despite acting in an extreme way in a terrible situation? Possibly.

Bingo. There's a huge double standard with respect to police. If a real person "makes a mistake" or does something he doesn't realize is illegal, he gets prosecuted; for cops those are treated as excuses.

Meanwhile cops are expected to have more experience dealing with these situations (or at least be trained to deal with them), and they get all the societal prestige (and salary and pension) associated with being brave and being on the front lines, risking their lives and so forth. The expectation for cool-headedness should be HIGHER. Nobody refers to Vladimir Putin's secret police as "Moscow's finest" just because they're really good at beating people up.

I read the police reports, and I read some of the testimony of the officers. This doesn't look to me like officers that wanted an excuse to severely beat King, but officers that did everything reasonably possible to avoid using their batons in the first place.

There are limits even to the stupidity of the police. Did you really expect their reports/testimony to consist of "Man, we sure beat the #### out of that ######! Serves him right for giving us so much trouble." Police cover up their misdeeds. They lie about them, and their fellow cops will lie for them. That is, of course, standard human in-group behavior, but most human groupings don't have the authority to use violence that cops have.

So why do you keep stating that here, when there is fight, a confrontation, that utter dominance by one side is reasonable for almost 2 minutes? Given other fights you've seen, how is THIS one excusable, acceptable, possible for that time? How is nearly two minutes a short window when all other fights - you know, ones involving no crowd, like this one - end in about 15 seconds?

Because this confrontation is very, very, different. There are two reasons why those fights end so quickly (outside of interruption): the loser submits completely to end the punishment, or the loser is unconscious. Neither happened here.

Those other fights didn't involve anyone aggressive enough to resist armed officers, or to throw off multiple opponents, or to keep resisting after being hit with two taser shots. What about that situation is at all related to a normal fight between two regular people? It's a poor analogy.

I can compare this situation to my personal experience, but it's a really lousy comparison because I've never seen anyone so overwhelmed by superior force continue to resist. There exist crazy people that just won't stop until they're rendered physically incapable of moving. If the officers reasonably felt that King was one of these people (and it doesn't sound entirely outrageous for them to think that), then perhaps that level of force was justified.

You keep saying "stress level," CB, but what stress? King had no weapon, and while he might have physically resisted offensive police actions (*), he himself took no offensive acts towards them. If that's stress, then what's a real fight where the suspect is attacking them? He was on the ground.



(*) I mean "offensive" as in offense vs. defense, not as in 'causing affront.'

CrosbyBird:

a.) I appreciate the answer, and as always, your entries are well-spoken and thought-out.

b.) I give up, because - in this case - I truly believe you simply are neither viewing nor proposing anything close to reality; and you never will at this point on this particular issue.

"There exist crazy people that just won't stop until they're rendered physically incapable of moving. If the officers reasonably felt that King was one of these people (and it doesn't sound entirely outrageous for them to think that), then perhaps that level of force was justified."

And that's for a jury to decide. If you are on the jury, your view of the evidence may be colored by your preconceptions and predispositions. If I'm on the jury, ditto. It all has to do with an appreciation of a number nuanced features. That's why guilt is not determined by a computer, and that's why one jury can let someone off while another wouldn't.

There are limits even to the stupidity of the police. Did you really expect their reports/testimony to consist of "Man, we sure beat the #### out of that ######! Serves him right for giving us so much trouble." Police cover up their misdeeds. They lie about them, and their fellow cops will lie for them. That is, of course, standard human in-group behavior, but most human groupings don't have the authority to use violence that cops have.

So you are assuming that these police are lying. I'm not willing to start off with "this is a giant coverup" as a default position, and I don't think it's all reasonable to say that because some or even many police lie or cover up their misdeeds that these officers were lying or covering up these particular misdeeds.

If the police are simply lying about the events prior to the videotape, then I'm completely in agreement that the events on the videotape are entirely indefensible. What I do know is that there was a jury that acquitted these officers, and that jury had more access to information than I have (and that you have). Were they all unreasonable people too?

Police cover up their misdeeds. They lie about them, and their fellow cops will lie for them. That is, of course, standard human in-group behavior, but most human groupings don't have the authority to use violence that cops have.

As a group, the police in the King matter did no such thing--they gave testimony at odds with each other, and some, to their professional detriment, came down against what transpired (especially as to Powell's behavior).

You keep saying "stress level," CB, but what stress? King had no weapon, and while he might have physically resisted offensive police actions (*), he himself took no offensive acts towards them. If that's stress, then what's a real fight where the suspect is attacking them? He was on the ground.

One of the officers testified that King struck him, and another testified that King "lunged" at him. Those are offensive actions (in the way you mean the word). I believe that one of the officers specifically testified that he kicked King because he was afraid that if he swung at him in that position that King might grab his baton.

I think it's very difficult, in the heat of the situation, to determine that King wasn't going to try to get up and attack one of the officers again the moment they stopped hitting him. I believe that's a stressful situation.

EDIT: That it is difficult doesn't give the police full license to do whatever they please, but it does mean that we give them a bit more latitude in that moment than we would give someone having the benefit of detached observation watching the tape.

You keep saying "stress level," CB, but what stress? King had no weapon, and while he might have physically resisted offensive police actions (*), he himself took no offensive acts towards them. If that's stress, then what's a real fight where the suspect is attacking them? He was on the ground.

One can argue the police overreacted, but one cannot say that King complied. He resisted arrest violently and in the most emphatic and definitive way. That in itself perhaps justifies the police drawing certain conclusions about prospective behavior. Even at the end, he did not go down as instructed.

So you are assuming that these police are lying. I'm not willing to start off with "this is a giant coverup" as a default position, and I don't think it's all reasonable to say that because some or even many police lie or cover up their misdeeds that these officers were lying or covering up these particular misdeeds.

What do you think they would put in their report after they just finished savagely beating an unarmed man to the brink of death? Of course they're going to try to spin things to make their actions look justified. This doesn't require a massive conspiracy, it's simply human nature. When people do something that they anticipate will cause anger or outrage from other people, they immediately attempt to conceal or justify their actions. Fortunately, in this case we have the video and needn't rely on ex post facto rationalizations on the part of the police.

If the police are simply lying about the events prior to the videotape, then I'm completely in agreement that the events on the videotape are entirely indefensible. What I do know is that there was a jury that acquitted these officers, and that jury had more access to information than I have (and that you have). Were they all unreasonable people too?

Really? You're going to play the "Well, they got off, so it must have been a justified beating." card? Is Andy holding you hostage or something?

Really? You're going to play the "Well, they got off, so it must have been a justified beating." card?

What's the point of having a jury trial? What is the jury's mandate? Do they in fact have access to information that we didn't have (and still don't) at the time? Are witnesses exposed to them in a way they are not to us? You can belittle all this, but all that goes to the heart of why our system prefers juries and gives them leeway and deference.

What do you think they would put in their report after they just finished savagely beating an unarmed man to the brink of death? Of course they're going to try to spin things to make their actions look justified.

That is true. What's also true is that the police did not act as if they had come to some monolithic consensus--in their reports or in their testimony.

This doesn't require a massive conspiracy, it's simply human nature. When people do something that they anticipate will cause anger or outrage from other people, they immediately attempt to conceal or justify their actions.

That is indeed so. And you know what, it works both ways. Police aren't the only ones who retroactively justify and minimize past behavior.

Fortunately, in this case we have the video and needn't rely on ex post facto rationalizations on the part of the police.

Yes, we do. And it is only one piece of evidence--an incomplete piece.

If the police are simply lying about the events prior to the videotape, then I'm completely in agreement that the events on the videotape are entirely indefensible. What I do know is that there was a jury that acquitted these officers, and that jury had more access to information than I have (and that you have). Were they all unreasonable people too?

Really? You're going to play the "Well, they got off, so it must have been a justified beating." card?

It's also factually wrong, since Powell and Koon were in fact sentenced to 2.5 years each. By a jury.

Really? You're going to play the "Well, they got off, so it must have been a justified beating." card? Is Andy holding you hostage or something?

Aha. So this is what's happened. Crosby! Can you get to a phone? Maybe you can break a glass and use the shard to cut yourself free, and then escape through the half-window?

One can argue the police overreacted, but one cannot say that King complied. He resisted arrest violently and in the most emphatic and definitive way. That in itself perhaps justifies the police drawing certain conclusions about prospective behavior. Even at the end, he did not go down as instructed.

One could say that King complied: "King complied." I, however, did not say that. (Well, not until just now.) Indeed, I said that he physically resisted. But his resistance was defensive, not offensive. He didn't grab a weapon, he didn't punch someone in the face or tackle one of the officers.

And by the time of the beating, he was simply writhing on the ground,not resisting at all.

EDIT: I mean "resisting" as normal English speakers use the term, not as cops use the term. Cops use the term "resist" to include not complying -- for instance, a protester who goes limp. One of those fake contempt-of-cop charges is "resisting arrest without violence."

Really? You're going to play the "Well, they got off, so it must have been a justified beating." card? Is Andy holding you hostage or something?

Like Bart Simpson when Homer announced that he was going to Klown Kollege, my only reaction to that can be "None of us really expected that", not even from such intellectual giants as Homer Simpson and Good Face.

271:

Keep scrambling. You'll find daylight some day.

However, again, neither the cops nor King should be legally judged according to vernacular standards.

He did not comply with the orders and instructions of the officers from the inception of the incident, which began with the car chase, and he never did at any point, although he had every opportunity to in fact do so, from the very beginning of the chase through the gamut of events right up to the stop--and including during the use of force. At any point in this entire sequence, he could have acceded to policemen’s orders, as had King’s cohorts. But, he didn't and that was legally resisting arrest, and it was a continuing offense, all distinctions without a difference to the contrary.

A jury had the right (and duty) to take all that into consideration. It seems that both juries did. One acquitted everyone but Powell (a hung jury), and the other acquitted all but Koon and Powell, and they were found guilty only after extensive deliberations in which the initial thrust of most of the jurors favored carte blanche acquittal, and where it has been inferred that the threat of further riots may have played a role in the reversal of that initial jury trend. Nevertheless, the other defendants were acquitted, and the other officers there at the scene were not even charged. The conviction of Koon really is open to question. That leaves Powell and the idea that his use of force went on too long—not that it was uncalled for in its entirety, but that it was too much. That’s why I asked above about all this here talk about how the “police” brutalized King, and how the “police” went simply wild. That was not the case, from what we know about it. There was a riot certainly, but it wasn’t a police riot.

I don't really have a problem with Powell's conviction. I have a problem with people who think he (and the others) doesn't deserve to have defense made for them, or that that defense is trivial. It's hard to factor out Powell's evident enthusiasm, and I'm sure the jury didn't factor it out. A trial is in the end a community's judging of someone--according to certain rules, yes, but still it's an elastic, even malleable, process, and what one community (and one jury) decides, another very well might not have. If you can't hack that, you don't really have any allegiance to the legal system. You just care about having your way.

neither the cops nor King should be legally judged according to vernacular standards

Perhaps, and if I were accused of some crime, I'd want you to present a defense in court on such terms.

However, there's another sense in which a law can be interpreted so egregiously out of alignment with "vernacular standards" that people lose respect for the legal system.

As DMN says, King was writhing on the ground; not only that, but he's surrounded by a small army of police officers. It's like a bad joke: how many cops does take to handcuff a suspect? Two to beat him senseless and eight to stand around and watch?

However, there's another sense in which a law can be interpreted so egregiously out of alignment with "vernacular standards" that people lose respect for the legal system.

There's much in what you say. But, I question whether the majority sentiments here necessarily represent conventional wisdom or community standards. People deserve to be informed about what are officially binding standards, and they have a right to have those standards meet their expectations, but they have to be willing to be informed, and they have to understand that not everyone can get his way. It's about apportioning rights and duties, and holding people to them, sometimes even when they don't like it.

"Homer, are you lying to me." "Marge, it takes two to lie: one to lie and one to listen."

Play your part, have your view, but the play is the thing.

King had no weapon

But according to the George Zimmerman defense, he could have grabbed the cop's gun at any moment, so they would have been fully justified in shooting him in self-defense, right?

There's much in what you say. But, I question whether the majority sentiments here necessarily represent conventional wisdom or community standards.

The ####?!? The community in question RIOTED after the initial verdict was announced. What more evidence do you need that it was at odds with the "community standards".

And by the time of the beating, he was simply writhing on the ground,not resisting at all.

They hold him to hold still, and he kept writhing. OBEY, DAMMIT.

They hold him to hold still

Sounds like a U2 song.

You're going to play the "Well, they got off, so it must have been a justified beating." card?

No. I'm going to say that a jury voted to acquit, and that supports the possibility that it was acceptable under the circumstances. I've said about thirty times already that there's no MUST involved, just COULD.

It is also possible that the jury was a bunch of racists, or that the prosecution botched the case, or that the police lied convincingly. I'm not really comfortable assuming any of those things as certain.

It's also factually wrong, since Powell and Koon were in fact sentenced to 2.5 years each. By a jury.

It most certainly is not factually wrong. There were two trials. In the first trial, the officers were acquitted (except Powell, for whom I believe 4 voted to convict and 8 voted to acquit). In the second trial, Powell and Koon were convicted.

I think you have to hold the cops fully accountable for anything in the "heat of the moment". There are 8 cops there. One baton strike too many and they MUST pull him off or its negligence (not using fthe word in strict legal sense)

We can believe whatever we want, but that's not the law. It wasn't then, and it isn't now, and it never has been, and it never will be. And you might want to consider the reasons why that is so.