From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Subject: Re: just thought
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 23:42:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.214306.16732@walter.bellcore.com> chavis@thumper.UUCP (Dennis Chavis) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.023309.17172@EE.Stanford.EDU> budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd) writes:
>>In article <93022.221502U60132@uicvm.uic.edu> <U60132@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>>>Provoked it? Where are you getting this information from?
>>
>>
>>Are you saying that fleeing police, driving at speeds of (at prosecution's
>>own admittance) 85 mph, and charging officers is not provocation?
>>
>>The point is not that he did not provoke a response. The problem
>>is that the response was inappropriate, to say the least.
>>--
>
>IMHO
>Granted Rodney was doing some things he should not have been doing.
>However, something called equal force comes to mind.
>This means that if Rodney would have had a night stick and was beating on
>the officers they can use the same force to subdue him.
>My point being, maybe I missed it, when was he beating up on all those 
>officers?  I must have blinked. 

Mr. King did not inflict any bodily harm on the police because he was
tasered before he could. You did not blink. 

>It does not matter if he was going 200 mph, the policemans job is to apprehend
>the fugitive and bring him to justice, not administer his own.

Agreed. That is why we have juries. The number one thing a policeman
must do IMHO is to uphold the law. The LA cops, in this case, failed
in this regard. But this was not the point of my post. Your frst statement
supports my claim. The original poster was claiming that Mr. King
did NOT provoke a response from the police. In fact, he did

>Even if he had shot 1 of the cops kids that is still his job to bring him to
>justice.  Granted if he shot someone in my family I'd be pissed
>and would want blood.  That is why I am not a cop, I would not be able
>to follow the rules.  However, personal feelings do not excuse a police
>man from doing his job.

No, they certainly don't. But, like the "defence" offered for the
rioters, it does make their actions more understandable. Police are
humans. Humans make mistakes. These cops made a mistake. They ought
to have been punished.

>More riots will probably continue if shit like that is not halted.
>What in hell were those jurors thinking about with that verdict?
>
The jurors were flim-flammed by fast talking lawyers, that's
what they were thinking. They saw that damned tape soooo many
times that theuy were de-sensitised to it. 
My thinking is this. Perhaps Mr. King required a blow of the 
baton to be subdued., Perhaps two. Maybe ten. Buyt the only
way that those cops were innocent was if _each_and_every_blow_
was necessary. I cannot believe that any thinking man would agree
to that. The verdict was a miscarriage oof justice. 

>Confused
>ZZ
>


--
 !         \                                                                    !      1------1                     
 !\     1______1            __1__     "And my mind was filled with wonder,
 ! \    1______1      /   ____1____    when the evening headlines read:
 !      !   \        / /  1__|_|__1    'Richard Cory went home last night,
Newsgroups: alt.rodney-king