Police Brutality and the LA Riots: A Complex History and Ongoing Conversation

[Ivan Seeking]

Those are the now famous words of Rodney King, which he spoke in response to a series of events that began twenty years ago, today.

(CNN) -- The Los Angeles riots 20 years ago this week were sparked by the acquittal of four L.A. police officers in the brutal beating of suspect Rodney King a year earlier. The turbulence that led to more than 50 deaths and $1 billion in property damage all began with a traffic violation.

A poor decision to drink and drive led to a 100-mph car chase and a chain of events that would forever change Los Angeles, its police department and the racial conversation in the United States...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/28/us/rodney-king-profile/index.html

I still have mixed feelings about all of this. On one hand, the history of police brutality in the LA area is undeniable. Not only have I seen it, not only have events from past decades come to light over the years, but we've also had a number of cops in the family and I've known a few other people who joined the force. When you have to deal with the worst of the worst of society, day in and day out, it takes a huge toll. It changes a person. From the pov of friends and family, it can destroy a person. So while I have found various incidents and experiences involving LA [area] police to be disturbing, I can understand why things get out of control. It's a war.

That said, police brutality is never acceptable. Sometimes it was difficult to not see the police as a bunch of thugs.

We had a family member who was an LA city cop his entire career. When he died we found a huge stash of illegal weapons in his shop. His daughter told me that he carried many of these weapons as a standard practice.

 

[Antiphon]

Every smart cop carries an extra weapon to be able to plant on a dead suspect if things get out of hand. I know I would do this. Self defense has different aspects which require different weapons. There is physical, legal, and moral danger to a policeman on the job. His sidearm is for physical protection. The gun he plants on the dead offender is for his legal protection. And his own psyche must be able to withstand the moral danger. This comes in the form for example of finding $20 million in small used bills abandoned in a warehouse in Sylmar, CA. Do you take some of it and become a thief yourself?

It's not easy to be a cop.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Every smart cop carries an extra weapon to be able to plant on a dead suspect if things get out of hand. I know I would do this. Self defense has different aspects which require different weapons. There is physical, legal, and moral danger to a policeman on the job. His sidearm is for physical protection. The gun he plants on the dead offender is for his legal protection

Is this crazy speculation, or just wild speculation?

 

[Hobin]

The gun he plants on the dead offender is for his legal protection.

...Which makes said cop a criminal to the very laws he swore to uphold. I'm not saying cops don't have to deal with a lot more than any person should have to deal with, but deciding that they're somehow above the law is NOT an acceptable way of dealing with the problem.

 

[Pythagorean]

Police misconduct is fairly pervasive. In the US, the most common form of police misconduct is excessive force. False arrest is fourth on the list:

from http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/?p=4053

When we do criminal statistics, we always talk about the numbers only reflecting the one's that got caught. I wonder how extreme that difference is when the law enforcers are the criminals.

 

[rytmenpinne]

No, we cannot... unless we completely give up on our egos and stop violently enforcing our will upon others, but that's just not going to happen.. at least not in the near future..

 

[feathermoon]

We've had a sherrif break into peoples houses to steal information for sale to paprazzi locally. This being a suburban area in the middle of no where.

The question is, are law officers more or less likely to commit a crime than the general population?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Every smart cop carries an extra weapon to be able to plant on a dead suspect if things get out of hand. I know I would do this. Self defense has different aspects which require different weapons. There is physical, legal, and moral danger to a policeman on the job. His sidearm is for physical protection. The gun he plants on the dead offender is for his legal protection. And his own psyche must be able to withstand the moral danger. This comes in the form for example of finding $20 million in small used bills abandoned in a warehouse in Sylmar, CA. Do you take some of it and become a thief yourself?

It's not easy to be a cop.

Ehhh...What? Why are you advocating getting away with murder?

 

[nitsuj]

"Going Postal"

another set of famous words.


What makes the stresses of cops different from that of say a postal worker?

I appreciate that a cop must handle the stresses far better than a postal worker, and hopefully they do.

I see nothing wrong with be rough on someone who is "tough".

I do feel bad for police regarding the "police Brutality". Kicking the snot out of someone is one thing. Being very rough, or causing a bruise of requiring a couple of stitches isn't "police Brutality".

In the olden days cops would "throw down" with the "outlaws".

 

[Hobin]

I do feel bad for police regarding the "police Brutality". Kicking the snot out of someone is one thing. Being very rough, or causing a bruise of requiring a couple of stitches isn't "police Brutality".

Something that requires stitches CAN be police brutality, depending on the situation.

 

[Pythagorean]

Ehhh...What? Why are you advocating getting away with murder?

I'm thinking it was an argument technique. What it looked like to me is he essentially put on a cop disguise and said "i'm a bad person" to convince us that cops were all crooked.

 

[nitsuj]

Something that requires stitches CAN be police brutality, depending on the situation.

Something causing bruising can be police brutality.

I don't think you honestly missed my point.

In Ottawa, a "police Brutality" case involved a cop who was video taped slamming a handcuffed female's head into the hood of their cruiser, not Hollywood movie style, more like big brother manhandling me style. Hmmm... I don't even know what became of it lol, I have to check but am sure he was disciplined.

Oh and in addition that video came out, piggy backing another "police Brutality" case (had more merit). So media is to blame for some of this heat between aggressive police & (aggressive) citizens. Our police chief was so slick handling the situation though, no more fire.

 

[Antiphon]

I'm thinking it was an argument technique. What it looked like to me is he essentially put on a cop disguise and said "i'm a bad person" to convince us that cops were all crooked.

You couldn't be more wrong about what I said. I meant it literally and flatly. Police have the right to use deadly force to protect themselves like anyone else. But when they get jumped by someone who outweighs and outmuscles them, they are obligated to kill that person in self defense. If that cop-assaulting perp turns out to have been unarmed (but who likely would have used the officers own weapon against him) the modern justice system crucifies the officer.

It's his moral duty to overcome the flaws in the justice system by carrying a gun he plants on the dead perp to save himself from an unjust legal system.

 

[Pythagorean]

I'm sorry I was wrong.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It's his moral duty to overcome the flaws in the justice system by carrying a gun he plants on the dead perp to save himself from an unjust legal system.

Likewise, it is the duty of every citizen to take the law into his or her own hands when crooked cops are in play, right?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

You couldn't be more wrong about what I said. I meant it literally and flatly. Police have the right to use deadly force to protect themselves like anyone else. But when they get jumped by someone who outweighs and outmuscles them, they are obligated to kill that person in self defense. If that cop-assaulting perp turns out to have been unarmed (but who likely would have used the officers own weapon against him) the modern justice system crucifies the officer.

It's his moral duty to overcome the flaws in the justice system by carrying a gun he plants on the dead perp to save himself from an unjust legal system.

Words can't describe how stupid I find this statement.

 

[Hobin]

*shudders* Antiphon, I hope very much that you're trolling.

 

[Office_Shredder]

If that cop-assaulting perp turns out to have been unarmed (but who likely would have used the officers own weapon against him) the modern justice system crucifies the officer. .

This is not at all the case but thanks for playing

 

[Ryan_m_b]

You couldn't be more wrong about what I said. I meant it literally and flatly. Police have the right to use deadly force to protect themselves like anyone else. But when they get jumped by someone who outweighs and outmuscles them, they are obligated to kill that person in self defense. If that cop-assaulting perp turns out to have been unarmed (but who likely would have used the officers own weapon against him) the modern justice system crucifies the officer.

It's his moral duty to overcome the flaws in the justice system by carrying a gun he plants on the dead perp to save himself from an unjust legal system.

To deal with this properly are you seriously suggesting that police officers should commit crimes before covering them up by forging others as a way of dealing with a legal system that you believe has flaws? If you think there are flaws why would you not advocate dealing directly with them?

The idea that a police officer should plant evidence is insanity. You'll end up with a situation where legitimate examples of police corruption and illegalit is covered up as standard and you'll open the door for police to plant evidence in a variety of other cases.

 

[nitsuj]

It's easy enough to bark back at those wild comments regarding planting evidence. But that point of view is not entirely ridicules.Many criminals CANNOT be prosecuted due to technicalities. Including violent, black & white cases where "beyond reasonable doubt" throws the case out. (Be empathetic to how someone "risking" there life to stop criminals, sees them walking free. In particular consider the mind set of a cop; for sure it includes a sense of power, at least over criminals. Making the free to walk criminal situation that much more difficult to "swallow")Wanna plant a gun on the guy who violently rapes somebody but gets off due to technicalities?

I appreciate this is an extreme rarity, so much so a suggestion like cops carrying "incriminating evidence" on them to later plant on "criminals" is mental, and way over powered.

There is a neat Robert DiNero & Al Piciano movie where They are cops, one starts taking "matters into his own hands".

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It's easy enough to bark back at those wild comments regarding planting evidence. But that point of view is not entirely ridicules.


Many criminals CANNOT be prosecuted due to technicalities. Including violent, black & white cases where "beyond reasonable doubt" throws the case out.


Wanna plant a gun on the guy who violently rapes somebody but gets off due to technicalities?

I appreciate this is an extreme rarity, so much so a suggestion like cops carrying "incriminating evidence" on them to later plant on "criminals" is mental, and way over powered.

Nope, I still absolutely disagree. The moment you start allowing manipulation of justice is the moment that you damage justice. It's very easy to throw up incredibly defined hypotheticals along the lines of

Imagine that rapist X has his friend secretly destroy vital evidence and all it would take is for noble police officer Y to [insert forgery here] to make sure he gets convicted; oh and obviously he'll never do it again

but these hypotheticals don't mirror reality at all.

If there are problems with the justice system fix the justice system, don't advocate gaming it because then you make justice secret and under the control of people with no oversight and therefore no guarantee that they will act in an ethical manner. A last point is that everyone should critically think about any case they hear/read about that is presented as nitsuj has above i.e.

Many criminals CANNOT be prosecuted due to technicalities. Including violent, black & white cases where "beyond reasonable doubt" throws the case out.

It is extremely rare for a case that is "black and white" to get thrown out, more often than not it is simply a media manipulation to sell stories or a political lie to push agenda (for example Micheal Howard's erroneous criticisms of the Human Rights Act on the basis of hear say legal cases). Also I can't believe I have to point out the logic behind reasonable doubt in a justice system unless we should just do away with innocent til proven guilty (not to mention that a case cannot be both "black and white" and "not beyond reasonable doubt")

We all want justice to be done but the correct manner to do so is to help create an open legal system with proper oversight. Not to encourage criminal activity as some sort of counter.

 

[Office_Shredder]

If a case is black and white then by definition there is no reasonable doubt. Black and white means there is no doubt in the matter

 

[Andre]

Plus one,

This discussion is filed under "noble cause corruption".

Maybe it's not limited to justice.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Nope, I still absolutely disagree. The moment you start allowing manipulation of justice is the moment that you damage justice.

Exactly.

The guilt of O.J. Simpson was thrown into considerable doubt when his defense was able to make a persuasive case for some of the evidence against him having been planted by Mark Fuhrman. If cops think they can do this, and its known they think so, a jury can't be sure of any evidence against anyone.

By extention, we could do this in science: fake up experimental support for a theory because we believe the theory is so good it must be right.

 

[Hobin]

By extention, we could do this in science: fake up experimental support for a theory because we believe the theory is so good it must be right.

It's somewhat unfortunate that - unlike in science - it's impractical to replicate the 'experiment' when you're trying to find out who the bad guy is.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Exactly.

The guilt of O.J. Simpson was thrown into considerable doubt when his defense was able to make a persuasive case for some of the evidence against him having been planted by Mark Fuhrman. If cops think they can do this, and its known they think so, a jury can't be sure of any evidence against anyone.

By extention, we could do this in science: fake up experimental support for a theory because we believe the theory is so good it must be right.

Definitely and you've hinted at an important point here. Arguments of ends justify means tend to fail at properly identifying all the ends. Sure one end might be that a guilty criminal goes to jail, but at the same time a possible end is that the practice becomes more common which could lead to false imprisonments and eventual revelation in court or the press which undermines a great deal of cases and confidence in the justice system.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It's somewhat unfortunate that - unlike in science - it's impractical to replicate the 'experiment' when you're trying to find out who the bad guy is.

FBI profilers, at least, are very good at reconstructing crime scenes.

 

[nitsuj]

Yikes!

 

[zoobyshoe]

Definitely and you've hinted at an important point here. Arguments of ends justify means tend to fail at properly identifying all the ends. Sure one end might be that a guilty criminal goes to jail, but at the same time a possible end is that the practice becomes more common which could lead to false imprisonments and eventual revelation in court or the press which undermines a great deal of cases and confidence in the justice system.

Back in the '60's it became clear police corruption was rampant in many parts of the US and clamping down on them has made things very much better here. We do not want to slide back the other way. Planted evidence for "good" reasons, will just about automatically lead to it being used for corrupt purposes.

 

[nitsuj]

If a case is black and white then by definition there is no reasonable doubt. Black and white means there is no doubt in the matter

hmmm... With that logic there are no innocent people in jail.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yikes!

I'm not talking about TV shows, if that's what you're yikeing about. Read one of the books by FBI Profiler, John Douglas.

 

[nitsuj]

oh no,

just a general yikes to the reaction to me trying to play devils advocate.