Talk:Rodney King/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

No mention of peace advocacy work

In the header i added some text mentioning his peace work during the 1992 riots. But it was removed. I will readd it so that both the good and bad is told about Mr. King.

Rodney King (South African Martial Arts Coach)

Isn't really relevant to the police abuse case and should be in an article of its own.

removed for now.

Officer names?

I think there needs to be more information in this article and the LA riots one about the officer's names and just more general information about them. There is no Rodney King Trial article so the officers need to be linked to here and in many cases need to have whole bios written about them at the very least.

Neutrality

Is this article completly neutral?

I don't believe so. It seems to be arguing against the status quo--example, repeatedly mentioning the fact that King tried to get up. If it truly was neutral, I believe we wouldn't find phrases such as "what the video doesn't show us".

Eazy-E

I've edited the entry in the popular culture section regarding Eazy-E's song for grammar and spelling.

User:Blairco 21:49, 25 November 2006 (EST)

Unemployed?

The reference stating that Rodney King is unemployed dates from 1991. Do we have a more recent reference? It does not seem reasonable for this purpose to rely on a reference that is 17 years old.

I think that referance means that he was unemployeed at the time of the indident in (1991). His current employment status is unknown?. It might be mentioned during his appeance on Season 2 of Celebrity Rehab which will premiere October 23rd, 2008. Azamien (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azamien (talk • contribs) 16:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

General Comments

The article states that there is no tape of Rodney King attacking the police officers. This is untrue, I have seen it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.177.12.38 (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does the article say: "more guns of all kinds were sold in the suburban areas surrounding the city, that day than any other day in the history of New York" when it's about LA? What does NY have to do with LA??

In the words of Michael "Flea" Balzary: "Hi, I should preface this by saying that I know nothing about anything." Ooookay...the article seems to be slighlty biased, and fails to adequately explain the racial overtones of the incident, or what black activists had to say about it. It's basically "big bad taxi driver gets pulled over, and WHOA!! there are riots all of a sudden!" Some polishing on this article would be appreciated.

This article fails to mention the court before which the police officers were tried. A case caption(s)/citation(s) would be nice.Steven 22:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Isnt this guy dead? I believe he got killed in a gang shootout over cocaine. 82.92.111.48 14:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

---

don't want to tread on any sensitivities here, not being from the US or having any real understanding of US domestic issues, but THE big thing that made the whole matter major news over here was that the officers who we saw brutally assualting King on TV were (a) not charged to begin with, then (b) aquitted by an all-white jury. Maybe there are local matters that didn't make it onto our news broadcasts, but the present entry reads like a whitewash. Err .. no pun intended. Tannin 07:54 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Whitewash? This is stub that I've been assembling from bits and pieces I've been finding while doing the day page updates. In the US, however, this was a very controversial topic with the great majority of white thinking the original verdict was just and the great majority of blacks thinking it was unjust. I've tried to reflect both sides in the meager amount of text written so far. --mav

Absolutely, there is a significantly high number of African-Americans within the US, such that it is rather strange how frequently all white juries will decide issues involving African-Americans. Susan Mason

Nationwide, blacks make up around 12% of the population of the United States. Regionally, populations can vary widely. For the sake of completeness, approximate year 2000 census figures are white=72%, black=12%, hispanic=12%, asian=4%, native=1%. -º¡º

PS to my post above: It wasn't just African-Americans who were shocked. It was the talk of white, middle-class Australia too. They played the tapes over and over. I remember being sickened by the beating and profoundly shocked by the verdict. I'm not aware of knowing anyone over here who didn't feel the same way, and I guess that applies to people in many other countries too. (I'm not going to comment on your point, Susan, as I'm not qualifed to do so from 10,000 miles away. But I hear what you are saying.) Tannin

I believe Leonard Peltier was tried with an all-white jury. Susan Mason

If I remember right, the first King jury wasn't all white - there was one hispanic. But that is a minor point. --mav

The Rodney King jury was made up of 10 whites, 1 hispanic, and 1 asian. Ventura county in 1990, from which the jury pool was drawn, was roughly 65% white, 2% black, 25% hispanic, and 5% asian. A "perfect" jury drawn from this county would have had 8 whites, 3 hispanics, and 1 asian. Things may not be as simple as we wish. -º¡º

I know what you mean BFB. I've just been refreshing my memory with a little reading on the case, and ... yes ... there are lots of complexities. I'm pretty much done with this entry. I just wanted to get the main fact out onto the page. I'm sure that others more familiar with it than I am will tidy up and get the details exactly right. Tannin

OK, I'll take my courage in both hands and insert it myself. I guess I have the advantage that I am 10,000 miles away and rather detached from the argument and thus a NPOV is easier for me, and the disadvantage that I'm 10,000 miles away and don't know anything much about it, other than the fact that I saw a black guy lying on the ground getting the living sh*t kicked out of him by three or four policemen and that (for reasons I don't understand) they were found "not guilty" by an all-white jury in a middle-class town a long way away from where the crime occurred.

(And yes, I know what you mean about starting a stub and getting flack because of stuff you haven't got around to mentioning yet. I sympathise.) Tannin

Rodney King was driving 80 mph and swerving violently about on a frequented road with a speed limit of 50. After being pulled over, high on PCP, King lunged at one of the police officers (conveniently not shown on the media, but a common fact known by anyone who bothered to find out what happened in the court room). The officers repeatedly told King to get down after subduing him, but he made repeated efforts to get up and attempt to attack the policemen again. But, thats not the way that the media wanted to spin it. Whats King been up to since then? Although the policemen got off, King was given 4 million dollars in a civil court. He has also been arrested half a dozen times since then, for various offenses such as: possession of cocaine, exposing himself in public, beating his girlfriend (multiple times), and most recently, driving 100 mph on a road before veering off and crashing into house (which was on the news a few months ago). (anon)

I know that. All except for the most recent offence, anyway. I'm not in the habit of posting without doing some research beforehand. None of that, however, is relevant to what happened immediately after the arrest. You and I may think that King is a nasty bit of work and like to see him safely locked away out of the community, but that is not the point. The law exists to punish people only after they have been given a fair trial, and even then it does not descend to savage beatings. Not in civilised countries, at any rate. Tannin

Except, the beating he received was not a "summary punishment", as you seem to (incorrectly) think. Rather, it was simply the police trying to defend themselves from a suspect whom they were simply attempting to arrest so he COULD be properly tried that chose to attack them, and was in such a state that more typical methods of defense and subduing were ineffective.

Furthermore, for some acts, savage beatings and torture followed by slow death as the sentence meted out after a proper conviction ARE indeed just and civilized. A punishment is only cruel if it is undeserved. Kurt Weber 18:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

King was ON PAROLE for another violation, and didnt want to be caught. He resisted arrest. Most forget about the other 2 passengers that were detained non-violently. And he won a $15 million dollar judgement, not 4. Most of which went to his lawyers, a bogus record company he started, and up his nose. King has also been arrested for drug charges several times since. IMHO he is a dirtbag. Mike 14:15 07.26.07

I am reluctant to touch the article, given its highly controversial nature, but I thought it would be pertinent for it to touch more on the nature of video evidence. The TV generation seems to think that anything seen in video is sacrosanct, but the courts quitely rightly regard video evidence as possibly dangerously misleading. This case is the now classic example; millions of people around the world (including thousands of LA rioters) think they know what happened that night because they've "seen the tape", when in fact they only saw a very brief edit of it. By most accounts, the key factor in the first acquital was not racism, but the jurors' shock at seeing the full tape and realising how much the network coverage had misled them. (Roger) 15:36, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Reminds me of the story about the man whose wife caught him in bed with another woman. He protested, "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" Anyway, King was beaten for daring to resist arrest. With so many cops present, there was no excuse to beat him like that simply to arrest him. Also, many allegations in this article that King was on PCP - any lab results or legal finding to back up this accusation? If not, it should be removed.122.31.178.226 (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does this article have no mention of the other 2 men in the car who were also black but not beaten because they listened to the cops? Also why doesn't say that Rodney king was 6'3, 211 pounds, and rushed the cops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolteonkonishi (talk • contribs) 21:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So I guess this is justification for police brutality, right? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Broken link moved here from article:

• Summary at the Canadian Department of Justice Bill 09:27, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

I certainly didn't. Thanks for catching that; I have no idea how it happened. Yours, Meelar 02:22, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

There are many aspects to what happened and how the courts and police handled things. The current article seems strongly biased toward the white / police perspective. As a white adult in the U.S. at the time of the beating, media reports and subsequent trials, I have to say that details such as the police failing to take Mr. King directly to the hospital after the arrest should be included (showing off Mr. King at the police station), as should their covering up this fact by falsifying their report afterwards. These details and more were explored in the second trial, which included new FBI interviews, police record investigations and advanced video analysis.

Ivo 12 Sept 2005

---

I don't think this article is biased at all. If anything it goes straight down the middle. The fact the guy was a multiple felon, attacked the officers, etc, is important. The article seems to quote the facts which is the point of an encyclopedia. People forget that more facts came out later and they tended to justify the police officers more than the initial typical knee-jerk "blame whitey" "no justice no mf'ing peace" type rubbish.

---

"Three of the men charged were non-Hispanic whites, and one was Hispanic."
Plain Hispanic or Hispanic white?

---

This is Article isnt biased. If anything it still shows King as a "victim" in some of its verbiage (Rodney King was repeatedly beaten...), which is not the case.

---

I saw the whole tape and trail on Court TV back in 92. King went 125 mph and then 70 in residential. He would not obey verbal commands. He didn't go down after a 50,000 volt taser. He threw two officers to the ground. What were the cops supposed to do?

---

I agree that this page is biased, and it should CERTAINLY include a link to the video itself at the bottom. Everyone who says these cops were following the law, or were defending themselves can't possibly defend cops beating a motionless person for thirty seconds, stomping on his head and such (whatever he had done before). The fact that the severity of the beating takes up one line, while the cops' hardly-challenged account takes up the rest of the article is alone grounds for bias. He is famous for being beaten, not for the police protocol that preceded it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.103.107 (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag removed?

An anon removed the NPOV tag on the article. Comparison of article before and after string of anon editing. This does appear to me to be removing POV from the article. POV is probably not the real problem here, however. "Put a buffalo down" is hardly encyclopedic tone, for example, and the article is unsourced. Instead of replacing the POV tag, I am going to tag the article as needing attention. Specifically, someone familiar with this topic needs to reference its facts. A list of website in an "external links" section is not useful, as demonstrated by an anon changing the number of times King was hit. Without inline citations, a reader has no way of knowing which of the two numbers is correct without having to follow the external links. Jkelly 22:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

—=="get along"== I remember this as clearly as if it were yesterday.He did not say "Can we get along here? Can we all get along?" King said "Can't we all just get along?" He was not some whining idealist, he was scared out of his wits. Let's stick to what he actually said, please. Gazpacho 09:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC) ive seen the recordings myself n i beg to differ

Rodney King's death

Umm... it says here that Rodney King died on April 29th 1992. Isn't that the day that the verdict was announced and LA riots started? I thought he had a civil trial afterwards. I googled around a bit and couldn't find any reference to the death of Rodney King (except some people think that he was beaten to death by the police when the video was recorded). Anyway I am not at all an expert on this, but I think things such as the death of someone as culturally important as Rodney King should be fact checked very carefully.--Metatree 07:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Alleged use of 'PCP'

This article alleges that Rodney King was on PCP even if it goes on to say that tests for PCP came up negative. The article itself refutes the claim. Also the speed King was driving at should be alleged, unless it was proven also. I find the article largely states the point of view of the police report as fact, even if the police were defendants in the issue. That, I think, is wrong. Also this article does little to cite its sources, eg. 'alleged by whom?'

He was high on printed circuit boards?

I think an easy edit for these kinds of statements is just to add 'allegedly' before the claims. See Wiki Policy pages Be Bold and Verifiability for related policy info. Antonrojo 18:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The article still alleges Mr. King was on PCP in the opening paragraph, citing a book that seems to contradict this. However, not all of the book is available online, so I've merely clarified what the online preview says for now. I'll try to get the cited book and research some more, this article looks like it could use improvement. -OakenWay (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding "allegedly" is like saying "some argue." It's a way to push your point of view while under the cover of NPOV. 71.254.202.46 (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

PCP and TASER useage

Ive edited the TASER comment....PCP, or any other drugs, have no impact on the performance of the TASER enegy weapon. The TASER, especially thr older units, are notoriously unreliable with a successful deployment rate (ie shooting the darts and incapaciating subject) sometimes around the 20% mark, requiring multiple TASERs to be used if one were to increase the odds. Revelations 01:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup and Conflict tags

I added tags for cleanup on this page and resolution of conflict because there are spelling errors and the structure of some of the paragraphs doesn't make sense (I will work on cleaning this up if I get time) and because there are contractictory, and occasionaly POV statements that need to be worked out by editors. Here's an example paragraph which shows several of these issues, namely in the first sentence arguing that the police were abusing police power, in the second that they used approved tactics and in the third that that these tactics are similar to those used in repressive countiries (possibly a valid point but not relevant in my opinion). Note how using however twice in the paragraph self-contradicts undermining the article's credibility:

"However, the videotape clearly shows that King was putting up little or no resistance against the attacks by the policemen, and for most of the incident lay on the floor, shielding himself. However, most police experts agree that the officers were folllowing their training, and standard police practices, by striking King in his legs and arms, which is very unlikely to cause serious injury, and is known as pain compliances techniques[citation needed]. The officers can been seen very clearly on the tape, striking King a few times, then giving him verbal commands, and repeating this process until compliance is achieved, which is a standard and taught police technique in countries such as China and Turkey, where police brutality is widespread." Antonrojo 14:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Also the article mentions that hew as repeatedly beaten over the head at the beginning but then goes on to say that the police hit him in the arms and legs which is approved police procedure. Nouseforaname312 21:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that it's completely focused on THAT incident, and is not really about Rodney King, which is the title. I think it needs to be rewritten with not so much emphasis on THAT incident and more about his background and other stuff. The particular incident that it describes can be described in detail in the LA Riots article (and linked to from here), this isn't the place for it. Smoothy 21:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Very true. There is almost no information about King in the actual article. It mentioned nothing about his economic or criminal background. Also, the article's discussion of the trial is lacking. Terry White, the prosecutor, goes unmentioned as does basically the whole trial. Nouseforaname312 07:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree that the article focuses too much on the incident (which is discussed elsewhere) and not enough on the person. However, focusing on the problems with internal conflicts, I've just tried to resolve some of these. The way parts of this article were written and the sheer number of conflicting opinions fighting for space actually made my brain numb. Seeing as I've lost cognitive abilities for the moment, could someone point out what conflicting statements are left? I'd like to try to clean them up so we can lose the conflict tag. Thx. --DavidGC 12:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the conflict tag which I had added when it seemed like sections of the article were arguing whether the arresting officers were following police procedure, etc. The internal conflicts I saw earlier have been cleaned up--thanks to whoever contributed. Antonrojo 01:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get overly-involved in this controversial page; just want to suggest that cleanup be done on poorly-constructed lines such as: "Another important reference was made in the film American History X, while being this the subject of discussion in a family meeting, with the main character, Derek Vinyard, played by Edward Norton, defending the overuse of the strength from the police against Rodney King." Twin11956 (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Arrest followed standard procedure?

I think the claim that the officers followed standard procedure needs strong evidence because the officers were indicted for using excessive force. Unless we want to make the claim that the court and jury overstepped their bounds in indicting the officer (a claim that has no place in an encylopedia article) I don't see how this statement can be supported. Antonrojo 17:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a factual statement to say that the officers claimed that their actions followed police procedure. However, it is debatable whether striking a person repeatedly in the head, resulting in skull fractures, would fall under the category of standard police procedure. Therefore, indicating that the officers argued that they were following police procedure is more of an NPOV statement and is preferable here. --DavidGC 02:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

you are both wrong as are most on this issue. the officers were not charged with using excessive force. they were charged with using force likely to cause death. the police testified on the stand that everything they did that night was in full compliance with the LAPD's use of force policy. sgt. stacy coon went on national tv and told the world this. he also speaks of it in his book. nobody ever stepped forward to discredit him.

as far as striking King in the head goes, he was never struck in the head on accident or intentionally. there is no videotape evidence of that whatsoever. the swelling on his face was from when he hit the ground after being struck with the PR24. rodney king picked a fight with police officers and we are supposed to feel sorry for him? what if he had killed one of the officers? would the residents of LA have rioted over that?

read officer Coons book. it just may educate you on the reality of what happened that night. keltik31

Considering that Coons was actually convicted and served prison time for this incident, it's pretty laughable to cite his account as the most definitive and authoritative version. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.32.36.103 (talk) 17:22, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Indictment and prosecution of arresting officers

I've reverted a wholescale deletion of this section. (Reason given for deletion was "Irrelevant to rodney King as a person. If we are going to amke it politically biased, kets just remove it!") Regardless of my agreement or disagreement with this rationale, given the amount of discussion and editing that has gone into this section, removing the section should be discussed here in Talk prior to deleting the section wholescale. Let's attempt to reach a consensus on this in a way that will result in a minimal amount of information/knowledge being removed from Wikipedia completely, even if that means that it needs to be placed elsewhere in the encyclopedia (such as a separate article on the incident and trial, which I'm not sure is really needed). Thx. --DavidGC 07:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should stay. There wouldn't be an article about King unless the incident occured and there isn't a Wiki article that deals specificly with the incident (at least I haven't seen one). Arguably there could be and this article would become little more than a brief bio with a link to that article. Practically speaking, I think most people will search on the term Rodney King and will get the info the're looking for. Antonrojo 16:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I also think it should stay, but edited for accuracy. The officers were not tried for excessive use of force. I can't remember what it's called right now, but they were charged with the equivalent of attempted murder. They would never have been acquitted for excessive use of force, but there was also no way that they would be convicted of the actual charge.Sorria2000 (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Broken link?

A link that I had changed to link directly to a movie apparenly is no longer working. My guess is that the website disabled links out of wikipedia so I'm changing the references back. Since most people probably don't know that "cliquez ici" means click here, an english website with this video is needed. Antonrojo 16:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

police procedure

Watching the video of the Rodney King beating left a terrible taste in my mouth. I think it unimaginable that anyone would find any rationality in proclaiming those actions warranted. My biggest grief with this incident is that some people including government representatives attempted to justify a crime caught on tape. As if a picture speaks a little less than a thousand words. My contribution to this article about Rodney King is, maybe an officer should have knelt down and placed a knee in the small of the back of the suspect and handcuffed him. Let's not try to create so many complex arguments to displace or attempt to justify deserved guilt. Maybe we should vote on taking away the martical arts programs and PAL from the police departments because they obviously don't use such tactics. We as a country have a long way to go still to eliminate some of the impetus pertaining to timid and intolerant minds that have caused crimes against humanity such as slavery, lynchings, and police brutality. Sun Tzu once summarixed that a country may create an empire with force, but to rule that empire with hypocrisy will eventually lead to its own demise. 66.245.122.161 05:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC) collective conscious

because they police have to follow procedure. putting a knee in Kings back at that point was not the procedure. if you knew anyting about the case, you would know that prior to the video starting, king was swarmed by four officers and he threw them off. keltik 31

• Im sick of people saying Rody King didnt desurve what he got but he probely doesnt even remember what happend to him since he was drunk out of his mind. When they pulled over Rodney he started to attack the cops so they started tazeing him and put nearly 100 volts in him but he wouldnt go down since he was drunk and didnt feel anything so they started to beat him so he would go down witch is police procedure.

Sad but true. It really doesn't matter if he was drunk or resisted arrest. They were four against one, and the kind of violence shown on the infamous tape is never warranted. Never.

However, this discussion doesn't really belong on Wiki. What does belong here is a discussion about the article still being wildly POV and trying to make it look like King "asked for it". --dllu 19:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Police Procedure

It is obvious that you have no clue about police work, other than what you have seen on TV. These officers had no way of knowing if he was armed or not, and have the same instincts of every other human. The instinct to survive and to continue to live. Until you are faced with the situation that police officers in this country are faced with everyday, why dont you stick to subjects that you know. And factually speaking, there was no crime committed by the officers, and jury of their peers agreed. Unless a jury convicts you, you are innocent. That is fundamental. The only crimes committed in the Rodney King incident were by Rodney King. All of the hooplah that followed, and the indicment of the officers was not justice, it was sensational journalism. A court of law concluded that the officers did not committ a crime, so that means they didnt.

Response to unsigned comment above: First, if the officers suspected he was armed, they would have shot him. Second, many people who commit crimes are found not guilty in court because of lack of evidence, a poorly prosecuted case, or a very clever defense lawyer (O.J. Simpson perhaps), and many who ARE found guilty are later released. In a recent case a man spent 27 years in a Texas prison for a rape he didn't commit and was released after the evidence was DNA tested. Police beat people to punish them for resisting. This is illegal but it happens routinely.122.31.178.226 (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont have to know about police work to know common sense. Do you think that through the long time it took to constantly beat him over and over and over and ... that the trajectory of the shot from a gun would be unlikely given the he was laying on his stomach in a near fetal position? Or perhaps possibly if the officers did what I suggested above, that is, placing a knee in the center of the back and handcuffing him and then frisking him and then placing him in a vehicle, it would be over. Like in all other criminal cases where self defense is thrown out as a defense when a victim is SHOT IN THE BACK. In fact the guy attempted to crawl away. What bravery for the police department. Likewise, I show no prejudice to police officers and apply the same argument toward them as they would a criminal. That is... his back was to them when they mercilessly tortured him. In fact, it is my belief if Ghandi was in loin cloth traveling that night, they might have beat him the same. Racism is prominent in California, the simple tuth is that there is no way that Rodney King was a danger to those police officers. It is disgusting and unconscionable for anyone like yourself to assert such. In fact, it is so convincing from the evidence I have viewed, that an alterior motive of racism or a pre-dispoditional bias is an axiom for people like yourself to make such precarious statements in defense of those domestic terrori...excuse me officers. Nice try partner, but the rest of America rememebers California's racist actions against the minority groups there in the past. It is a stain which will never go away. Such men like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is immortalized in history in a positive perspective. How is California immortalized in history? I dont expect you to try to understand, our cultural history is one where pride is enveloped in the repression of and crimes against humanity toward other colored people. It takes significant effort to stray away from this, but many don't they don't realize how evil they really are until many years later their grandchildren must live with the shame of what has been done. You my friend obviously dont know about criminal justice. How many time has a jury convicted only to find out that the prosecution has withheld evidence? How many people have been exonerated because of DNA evidence resulting in moratoriums? How many innocent people are convicted? Try looking up the Denmark Vesey plot and the new research done by Michael Johnson (not the basketball player) of John Hopkins University. Where we executed slaves for a plot that now Professor Johnson and many other historians have claimed to be a lie and that the slaves were actually innocent even though history books today still mention that the slaves were found guilty. More importantly, get an EDUCATION. If you dont take heed to this, then remember one thing, minorities dont hate you, they love you, you dont have to be scared.

Being a minority myslef, I do not need you to give me a speech about civil rights, but thank you for the effort. And as far as you reference to the slave days, I think all would agree that we have came a long ways since then. Johnppd24 00:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Those days may be forgiven but not forgotten. In case you have not been paying attention to the news, Mr. Killen, the individual responsible for killing the civil rights individuals in Mississippi during the civil rights movement ("Mississippi Burning" was based on this) was released due to poor health recently. HUmmmm? I do agree with you on one thing though, it has been a long time since slavery, moreover a long time , oooops, excuse me, when have we had a female or colored president? I think that if you are a minority you exemplify with skill the reference of Malcolm X in response to the few minority whom share the scraps from the table of power in order to keep their own kind in line. What is interesting is our foreign policy involves this same methodology. That is finding a few quislings or collaboraters of each nationality or ethnicity to be their political prostitutes. Time length does not forgive crimes against humanity, actions do partner, sorry. Americans must deal with our slavery, our genocide against Native Americans, and many more just as the Nazis and Germans today have to deal with the Holocaust and the Japanese with the Nankings. Let's not be jingoistic or chauvinistic. The proliferation of this country's economic hegemony was based on forced labor as its determinant. Affirmative action does not reimburse this crime but deters insurgency which may become a reality for this country if our steps are not tread lightly. When does compensation or the acres and mules come? Institutional racism should be a subject of study for you since you have made the mistake of relying on the unstated assumption that because the physical institution does not exist that there are no detrimental after effects from this physical and psychological evil practice. Try reading some psychology books and come back to me. It appears your stating that you are a minority to change or effect my viewpoint along with your self proclaimed knowledge of the Civil Rights Movement is hilarious to me. Being that if you knew about this movement , you would have remmebered the rhetoric distinguishing constituents of minorities detrimental to their own kind as a result of greed and other reasons. In addition, the civil rights movement for African-Americans was not about forgetting slavery, it was about living with that legacy and learning from it. OOOOps! ~~Colllective Conscious

why are you attempting to minimize a hate crime against a black man by three terrible racist, criminal thugs who beat an unarmed black man simply because he was an african american? this is not really an isolated case, perhaps an extreme version but I read about hate crimes being committed by police all over the world each day, even in the best of cities where there is no real racial tension like here in Canada. Even if Rodney King was the worst human being in your eyes, he does not deserve to be brutally beaten by police officials. You are trying to minimize a government sponsered hate crime on an innocent black man.

--Eternalsleeper 09:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No matter how much you want to make it so, it was not a hate crime. And your comments don't help improve the article. Jtpaladin 19:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the real clincher here is more the fact that there were a good few parts in the video where he is lying face-down and motionless on the ground, sometimes for up to 10seconds.

Regardless of what he did before the tape rolled, everyone can see that there was plenty of time for the officers on hand to jump on him and get it sorted, (you can actually see seven of them on the video).

For all the people that think this should be deemed justifiable on the basis that he should've just laid still and not "resisted"... The human instinct, of either fighting or getting away (from the people that are beating you sh!tless) is pretty strong... I mean look at the injured man crawl, he sure as hell isn't going for the cops. It's called "Fight or Flight" - not "Fight, Flight or Stand Still" - Google it, or test it out yourselves, get a group of power-tripping dullards to start beating you and see how you react... Do it a couple of times if you need to.

BTW if the cops seriously suspect that someone might actually have a firearm, they'd have their guns out, right?

tactik 16:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Why was this removed from the article?

"The verdict shocked much of the country. The President of the United States, George H. W. Bush, made a rare statement on the trial, saying that the verdict "has left us all with a deep sense of personal frustration and anguish." "Viewed from the outside, it was hard to understand how the verdict could possibly square with the video." Then he made sure that the nation understood that this was a family response, not a presidential directive. The president added that he, his wife Barbara, and his children were "stunned" by the verdict. The verdict triggered massive rioting in Los Angeles, which left hundreds of buildings severely damaged or destroyed and dozens dead. Smaller riots occurred in other U.S. cities. King made an appearance before television news cameras to plead for peace, saying, "Can't we get along here? Can't we all just get along?"

On May 1, as the unrest continued, President Bush announced that he would most likely charge the officers with violating King's civil rights. King testified in this Federal trial on March 9, 1993. Then on August 4, a federal judge sentenced LAPD officers Stacey Koon and Laurence Powell to 30 months in prison on this charge. The other offiknm.jk.k.kj.cers were not convicted, and there was no rioting."

MisterSheik 06:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there needs to be some reworking of the section on the attack itself. Someone with no familiarity with the case or the video would not understand why the attack was such a sensation. The section on the attack spends extensive time explaining and justifying the early efforts by the police to subdue King but glosses over the extended sequence of beating that he received and, in its language, makes it seem like this was more mutual combat than the pretty savage beating which is on the tape.

A larger issue

Something which doesn't seem to have been brought up in this discussion (or the article) is the effect of public opinion on warping the perception of reality. The incident is seen by the public as representative of larger, more important issues. And so there is a strong desire by the public for the incident to be the poster child of that conflict.

And that means the public... on both sides of the debate... has a strong tendency to ignore the actual facts and see the case instead as if it were an average representation of the larger conflicts. Whether or not Mr. King fought the police, for example, is strongly contested because one side doesn't want him to have fought police and the other side does. The motivation for this disagreement _IS NOT_ whether he really did or not in this particular incident. Rather each side wants it to have happened their own way in order to prove their points about the larger issues.

This point is made more evident by the posts in this discussion by people who actually admit they have little knowledge of the incident and yet are certain they know what happened. They see in their minds not the actual event... because they admit they don't have that information... but instead an image based on their own beliefs and their own feelings about the larger conflict. And there is _no reason_ to believe that this synthesized reality has anything to do with what actually happened in the real world in this one particular incident.

Whether or not Rodney King was unjustly beaten does not actually answer the question of whether or not unjust beatings are a common problem. The incident may not be representative of what typically happens.

But both sides want it to be. And they want the facts to match their own viewpoints.

For the black community, I feel it is a mistake to hold on to this. Their 'representative' in this matter is a real piece of work. They want to gloss over what a dangerous criminal this man is. But his criminal record before and after the incident is very telling.

Conversely, most of the white population has, at least once in their lives, been accused of showing racism toward other groups, even when they were not. And they do resent that. So they would like it to be shown that the Rodney King incident is another example of the black community jumping to conclusions.

I'll make one final point concerning the jury. I agree that the absense of black members of the jury is bad for the case. However, consider this... where exactly would they have found black jury members who would have listened to the case fairly? The feelings about the case clearly ran far deeper through the black community than they did through any other group (as evidenced by the riots). The defense was, I feel, correct in assuming that a jury of black people from LA would find the police officers guilty before the case even started. Again because of my points above. The feelings about the matter among other groups were more divided, so this arguably gave a better chance of reaching a legitimate conclusion.

While this is certainly not ideal, the fact of the matter is that justice is very difficult or maybe even impossible to obtain while the weight of the public eye and brash public opinion weighs down on the proceedings.

24.23.231.54 00:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[Racist slur edited out]

i had to take this out. Keltik31 20:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

and this has to come out too

While most police departments teach officers how to perform armlocks and other restraint techniques with their batons, the LAPD officers had only been trained in striking techniques.

this is absolutly false. the lapd used to use choke holds and all of the officer involved knew how to use the choke hold. the department decieded to cease using such holds when a few black suspects died and there was an outcry from the black community. that is is stacy coon's book. Keltik31 20:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Read the sentence, it says the officers had not been trained on restraint techniques with their batons. It says nothing about choke holds.Blackeagle 04:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

no scull fracture

king did not suffer a fractured scull. he did suffer a fracture to his cheek when he fell to the ground. he was never struck on the head with the pr24 baton. Keltik31 21:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Your cheek being part of your skull, Genius. tactik 16:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The cheekbone is not the same thing as the skull, blowhard. 76.115.59.36 (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Before making acerbic comments, you should probably learn to read: skull. The cheekbone is part of the skull (which also includes cranium, jawbone, etc.). DonQuixote (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

and this too

The video footage, while showing most of the incident, is notably lacking in the first few minutes of the confrontation, during which King is alleged to have lunged for the weapon of one of the police officers present - Lawrence Powell, and in sound.

i had to remove this as well because it is false. the very first few seconds of the tape in fact DO show king lunging at one of the officers. what was played over and over on the news was not this part, but of the part showing king laying on the ground being hit with the batons. it should maybe be explained in the article that police work is a dirty job sometimes and that when suspects get violent with the police, the police have to respond. Keltik31 21:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

gauntlet

this article failed to add information on the gauntlet run by blacks and hispanics that violently attacked white motorists. i added it. Keltik31 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggest you read Running the gauntlet... Addhoc 21:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Explorer hack

This page has been hacked: view it in Explorer (not Firefox) and you'll see profanity in stead of the name "Rodney King".

This comment was made on December 15, 2006. I dug through the History out of curiosity about how vandalism of the page would insert such an elaborate code, and didn't find any such markup at all. Either the markup was all taken out of the history of the article or there was only a difference in timing with which the original poster opened each browser. Wnt (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Splitting article

So, who wants to split the references in popular culture section into another article like how has been done with List of Minotaur references in popular culture? Right now the popular culture section is longer than the article itself. Sparsefarce 04:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's kind of silly to have a 'pop culture references' section longer than the rest of the article. I don't know if there's a specific place to officially request it or not, but if I don't see any updates within a month, I'll go ahead and split it myself. I mean, really, do we have to list each and every pop culture reference on the main page? Ehurtley 23:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

there are some silly things in here

especially about other than humans being upset about this. Keltik31 19:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

2007

I wonder was he had done untile now, all these years? --Ricky59 15:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Full Video Tape" evidence of King "rushing" police officers?

The article references that the Simi jury saw a "full" tape which included King "rushing" the police officers, implying that this additional footage swayed the jury. I have checked YouTube, and the longest segment I can find is 1:26. It shows King kneeling, apparently trying to get up off of the ground, while one officer repeatedly strikes him with a baton. Is this what the article is referencing? If so it's POV and inappropriate.DougRWms 03:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

George Holliday's website (http://www.multishow.com.ar/rodneyking/index.html) shows a 1:48 "screening tape" of the incident, which includes sound. The video is partially obscured by Mr. Holliday's copyright information (presumably to discourage unauthorized duplication of the proprietary video). The homepage of Mr. Holliday's site claims that the video is 12 minutes long. The page's "second by second" analysis of the tape contains a reference to Mr. King "charging" Ofcr. Powell. I was not able to discern this in the tape. Since the "second by second" analysis does not contain time markers (as in, "00:32, King is up and rushes Officer Powell), I don't know when (or whether) this alleged charge occurs.DougRWms 03:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

--I remember seeing an approximately 12-minute video on CNN at around 2:30 AM as breaking news, but remember little else as I was a throughly intoxicated college student. LizShort (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

See this version. Page includes second-by-second account. I wouldn't call what King did "charging". It looks more like a stagger, and that he was too punch-drunk to know which way to go. His arm is up, extended, at shoulder-level, as to try (pitifully) to protect himself, NOT to take a gun. 16 Sept 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.166.252 (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you watch these videos WITH sound you clearly hear police offers stating to stay down. However, they did not use proper means of restraint and were not in clear danger. They are attempting to enforce compliance however they are doing it EXCESSIVELY and IMPROPERLY. Both sides are correct and Rodney King could have easily stopped the beating by laing on the ground. You will see hiim get up repeatedly. Should officers have struck him as such? You decide (I say no) but are the officers in the wrong? NO. You break the law, you don't comply you deal with the reprocussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.37.19 (talk) 05:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone keeps changing this section to assert categorically that there is no question of any part of the video evidence being in dispute. I find this a sad and bigoted view, especially in the light of that evidence's weight in the jury's findings. rturus (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Taxi driver

What evidence is there that he was a taxi driver or still is? If he were awarded 4 million dollars I highly doubt he is driving taxi anymore, not sure if he ever dead and I suggest it be removed if there is no credibility to that suggestion! --Eternalsleeper 09:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This Article Really Needs Revising

Rodney King was a dangerous criminal, and he should've been beaten worse. Does no one see his history? He led police on a dangerous chase, and he endangered lives! He should've been dealt a harsh sentence, and the beating was not as bad as hitting someone with a car and killing them? What tune would you sing if he hit one of your family members? White America needs to stop looking at this in a victim light. He is a dangerous man, and deserves what he got. The officers were doing their duty. - Auguest 3rd -

"He is a dangerous man, and deserves what he got."

Yeah... he sure looked dangerous, lying on the ground, motionless, being beaten.

As for chasing petty criminals... I've seen enough crappy Cops-style car chases in my time... I came to the conclusion pretty quickly that "people run from the cops, when the cops chase them".. I think the onus is on the police in the situation (as Protectors of the Public) to weigh up the pro's and cons based on their extensive experience.

ie; He had a broken tail-light, but if we give chase and he runs then he'll probably crash and either hurt someone/himself/us or cause a lot of damage.

tactik 16:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Tactik, you don't understand. The KKK is not available on such short notice, so these craven thugs "were doing their duty". 17 Sept 2007

Remove Neutrality Tag

This article seemed pretty neutral to me, providing both sides of the story. -August 13, 2007

Stop being facetious.tactik 16:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please point out exactly what is not neutrally presented. -Pgan002 03:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It may be missing some good information, nowhere did I see it imply that the level of King's beatings during his arrest was justified. I think the section on public opinion being swayed by the media is most important. That's what the rioting on this really hinged on; the tapes shown by the media which only showed beatings, not the intial resistance of King to the police. I still don't say their level of force was appropriate, but seeing the entire tape in total with the police testimony helps to place it into perspective, which lessens the level of outrage at the officer's actions. Data on King's past transgressions (and subsequent ones) only helps to lend credibility to the assertion that he was not a completely innocent victim of police officer racism. They had cause, and were certainly agitated by his behavior. His violent past and present I think is necessary place weight in that point of view.Oberlin1 (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Oberlin

Don't use this talk page as a soapbox

That's not what it's for, people. Jtrainor 17:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It is, as well, feasible to assert a wide variety of potential interpretations f/ that evidence. Further, it is a credible argument that even the most severe torturer, genocidal practitioner, should not, in turn, be tortured. However, due to the above comment, I am resisting the temptation to attempt to list-out those various rationales.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Rodney_Glen_King; Rodney_Glenn_King

I do wonder whether he would spell it as Rodney_Glen_King or Rodney_Glenn_King. It is my impression, recollection, that that morning, & the previous night, he had referred to himself as _Glen_King, _Glenn_King, & that the officers had complained to him that he had not stated his full name. One of the officers complaining had, as well, been named Glen King, Glenn King. I have always wondered whether a contributory factor towards employing the middlename might have been avoiding Rod King. Are you aware of his ever having been asked that??

Some of the television reports are claiming that last night, subsequent to being shot, he rode a bicycle to his home, that he then called the police department of whichever city.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Firts line errors

Sorry to add more to this discussion, but the first line states that King was beaten during the 1992 riots. He was in fact beaten by members of the LAPD in March of 1991. Their acquittal in 1992 is the event which touched off the riots of that year. More on Rodney King in today's (Thursday 29 November 2007) news reports that he was shot while riding a bicycle. He continued to his home and called the police, who stated that his injuries were minor. zhenjiu 22:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)zhenjiu

'Incident' section only has 1 POV

Only the story of the police in this section...add King's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.236.67 (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC) ]

absolutley false

"There is no part of the tape that shows Mr. King attacking the officers, as some have claim"

this part of the article is absolutely false. if you watch the very beginning of the video it clearly shows king charging at the officer. king was told over and over again to comply and he refused. Valliant1967 (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I just clicked on the link in the article and watched the tape. It shows no such thing. He's flat on his belly at the very beginning. You're lying. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, any claims need to be backed up with a reliable source. The claim above was not. It was sourced by a company that is licensing the video, whereas we need either a newspaper, magazine, etc. that analyzes the video on their own and reports on it. We can't watch the video ourselves and make any claim in the article (wikipedia editors are not reliable sources.) I've noted that a citation is needed on the above claim, but any un-sourced somewhat controversial statement like this can be removed without discussion. thanks, --guyzero | talk 00:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

anderson, you need to watch the whole video. i dont know what version you watched, but you can see in the whole video King lunge at officer Powell. Valliant1967 (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Troll bridge approaching. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

isnt "trollbridge" a personal attack? Valliant1967 (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the version of the video you are watching, in which Greedo King attacks first. Otherwise, drop this line of thought for lack of evidence. ThuranX (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

i've been searching for a version of the video that shows the first 3-5 seconds where king does charge at one of the officers. there are versions on youtube that are edited. i will keep searching. Valliant1967 (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The sockpuppet/troll who started this thread has already been blocked, after which he threatened on his talk page to return, so keep an eye out for him. For what it's worth, I did find a version of the video that begins about 12 seconds earlier than the one posted in the external links here. The first four or five seconds of that are very shaky, but do seem to show King on his hands and knees and in motion. It's anybody's guess whether he's charging someone or trying to get away from the blows being inflicted on him. This is followed by seven or eight seconds of extremely blurry footage in which nothing can be clearly seen while the camera operator tries to adjust his settings. All of this proves nothing, obviously, and constitutes no reason to make any changes to this article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

this article is nonsense and needs to be corrected

rodney king was running from the cops at a high rate of speed that night. he was finally pulled over and told at gunpoint to get out of the car and put his hands behind his back. he refused. four police officers swarmed him and he threw them off. he did charge at one of the officers and was knocked down with a baton. at that point he was tased. it had little effect as the tasers have been much improved since then. he then contined to refuse to comply and at that point the officers used their batons to try and break kings elbows and knees. THAT IS WHAT THE LAPD'S USE OF FORCE POLICY SAID THEY WERE ALLOWED TO DO. the officers broke no laws that day. they complied with the use of force policy. this article needs more info on kings long and violent criminal record. it needs to have more info about the lapd's use of force policy and needs to stop acting like king was out for a sunday drive and four racist police officers pulled him over for a beating. there were also two black passngers in the car with king, they were arrested without incident because they didnt try to attack an officer like king did. i will correct this article when i get the time. believe me. Tybridgefarm (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Give me a damn break. No use of force module in the USA stipulates that police officers are allowed to break someone's body parts if they are not cooperating. Please show everyone here a source were you got this information. I worked in law enforcement for 7 years and have never heard about breaking body parts as a means of cooperation. The only time when deadly force is necessary is when the immediate loss of life is about to occur. Dumaka (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point - the article seems to suggest that because Holliday did not film King attacking the officers, it did not happen, which is dubious at best. There's no mention of the others in the car, or of King's previous criminal record. Also, was he under the influence of PCP as suggested at the time? The fact that he was later arrested for being on this very drug seems like a huge coincidence. Yet another left-wing Wikipedia whitewash.--MartinUK (talk) 10:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

i agree completely. i remember seeing the whole video on the rush limbaugh show where he loops the part where king lunged at the police and was knocked down with a baton. over and over again he showed it. king clearly was in the wrong here, but to read this article you'd think it was a racially motivated attack. if you want to read the truth about this incident, read stacy koon's book: Presumed Guilty. nobody ever challenged what he said in that book about the use of force policy that actualy required the officers to deal with king the way they did. not exactly a wikipedia whitewash, but close. i think wikipedia is afraid of the truth on a lot of topics. Tybridgefarm (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You folks have any reliable sources for this stuff? Please see the section directly above this one. --guyzero | talk 16:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

yea i have a source. read stacey koons book: Presumed Guilty. Tybridgefarm (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice Tybridgefarm is the latest sockpuppet of Valliant1967. I told you in the above thread that he promised to return and cause more disruption. Policy is revert on sight for banned users like this. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of who has added it here, most of Tybridgefarm's statement appears to be true. There is no mention of King's criminal past, an implicit denial that he attacked the police first, no mention that the police were following proven policy established after previous attacks by criminals, or that the two men with him were arrested peacefully....--MartinUK (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone a career criminal [1] is not neutral. Again, stating that he was known to use PCP, or his passengers' reactions, or the allegation that he lunged first [2] all needs reliable sourcing per this policy. thanks, --guyzero | talk 18:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Martin, then find a reliable source and submit it to consensus. Clearly a book by a participant with an obvious axe to grind doesn't qualify. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Edited Video, Resisting Arrest, Other Issues

I made some changes to the article. There were objections. Here were the changes

1) The video tape that KTLA initially aired of the beating was edited. It has led to a fairly common misonception that King was initially complying or lying prostrate when the beating occured. He wasn't. There are good sources for this: namely, http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/kingvideo.html and Lou Cannon's book. I don't speculate as to why the tape was edited. Regardless, it has led to the widespread misconception that King was an innocent random African-American motorist, who got singled out by rogue racist cops. This simply wasn't the case.

2) It's not one lone author--Lou Cannon--who asserts King resisted arrest. Rather, it is widely accepted view among people familiar with the facts of the case. In the words of Supreme Court Justice Kennedy: "Officers Powell, Wind, Briseno and Solano tried to force King down, but King resisted and became combative, so the officers retreated." See: Koon v. United States. The opinion is available on a variety on law school websites: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eon/bridgefacts/koon.html. This is also stated in other fairly reputable sources like US News and World Report. At the end of the day, King was combative and resisted arrest. The facts point to that.

3) There is a reason why I included information as to why Judge Kamins was removed from the case. Namely, because a California appellate court unanimously ruled that Judge Kamins would be partial towards the prosecution. In fairly blunt terms, they said he was political grand-standing. I cited the a New York Times article: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE5DF1638F931A1575BC0A967958260. Seeing that there is a great deal of controversey behind the trial, I felt this relevant.

4) I removed Mayor Tom Bradely's quote: "the jury's verdict will not blind us to what we saw on that videotape. The men who beat Rodney King do not deserve to wear the uniform of the L.A.P.D." Two juries acquitted Timothy Wind and Theodore Briseno of the use of excessive force and violating King's civil rights. Mayer Bradley wasn't part of the jury. He did not hear the evidence in it's totality. Bradly's quote is not useful commentary about the arrest or trial. If anything, it should be put in the context of inflaming an already volatile situation.

5) In California, DA's don't charge people with most felonies. Grand juries do that.

6) Both of King's passengers were black. Neither were harmed. Given the obvious racial overtones of this case, this is an important observation.

7) Also, I include in my edits the number of times the officers struck King: approximately 50. I also pointed out that Powell repeatedly struck King when he was down.

The sources I use are reputable: New York Times, USNews, Legal Rulings, and research from Law Professors. There may slight differences--i.e., King was clocked at 115mph as opposed to 100mph. But for the most part a consistent picture emerges:

• King was very intoxicated.
• He repeatedly ignored Highway Patrol's orders--even when Highway Patrol had guns drawn.
• King's passengers, who were black, complied with officer's orders and were taken into custody without incident.
• Sgt. Koon ordered Highway Patrol to holster their guns b/c it posed undue risk to King.
• King then ignored Koon's and LAPD's orders.
• King fought with LAPD, overpowering four officers. If King had gotten control of one of the officer's weapons, someone would have mostly likely been killed.
• Officers reasonably believe King is on PCP.
• LAPD shot King twice with a Taser. King stood back up both times, again disregarding officer's orders.
• Standing up the second time, King charged towards Officer Powell.
• Powell strikes him and knocks King down. Then Powell strikes him again several times.
• For the next minute, the four officers repeatedly strike King, as he alternates between crouching on his knees and lying down. Powell delivered the most strikes.
• During this time, Officers most likely could have swarmed King and held him down.
• When King complied with Officer's orders, he was handcuffed and taken into custody--without further violence.
• Most of these aspects were ignored in the initial media coverage and have led to a variety of misconceptions about the case.

Please state how pointing the things out is taking a biased stance towards the officers. In no way am I tarnishing Mr. King since all of this information is a matter of court record. Again, see: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eon/bridgefacts/koon.html

Cheers, StarbuxRedux (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's my two cents.

1)Irrelavent. The article doesn't follow the misconception.

2)Already mentioned in article.

3)The article mentions that the initial judge was removed. It's adequate in-and-of-itself. However, adding that he was dismissed because of grandstanding might be informative.

4)That's an example of the general public view on the outcome of the trial and a factor in the cause of the riots. It could probably be worded better and/or be moved to the riot section.

5)Your point being? Irrelavent unless you give a reason why it matters.

6)Already mentioned in article. Besides, it's not that important in that not everyone present has to be a victim -- only the victim has to be the victim.

7)Most of the things you list is rather irrelavent. The important points are:

• For the next minute, the four officers repeatedly strike King, as he alternates between crouching on his knees and lying down. Powell delivered the most strikes.
• During this time, Officers most likely could have swarmed King and held him down.

Simply put, the public viewpoint was that it was a case of using excessive force. It would be the same as if, after everything that happened in the beginning (speeding and resisting arrest), the officers walked to their cars and got out axes and started hacking away at him. It doesn't matter that he broke the law or resisted arrest (other than the fact that he needed to be constrained), it just matters that the officers, for one reason or another, used too much force (beyond what was called for) -- at least that was the public reaction at the time. DonQuixote (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

----Reponse-----

-Don Quixote says, “It would be the same as if, after everything that happened in the beginning (speeding and resisting arrest), the officers walked to their cars and got out axes and started hacking away at him.”

No, it wouldn’t. Repeatedly attacking someone with an ax constitutes deadly force. The officers specifically avoided the use of deadly force.

Officers are trained to follow a general “use-of-force-ladder.”

See: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/kingforce.html or http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/3300/3300lect04a.htm

Officers don’t have any say about this. If they don’t follow it, they will be reprimanded.

For the LAPD at the time of the beating, the general use of force ladder was:

Level 1: Physical Presence

Level 2: Verbalization

Level 3: Swarming

Level 4: TASER

Level 5: Use of PR 24 Metal Batons

Level 6: Use of Deadly Force

Officers clearly went through the force-ladder. At each step (aside from Level 5), the officers took slow, discrete actions towards escalating. There was nothing rushed about it. Officer Koon even told a highway patrol officer to put her gun away. At each case, King resisted arrest. In fact, the reason why the force was escalated to Level 5 was because of King’s own actions: he charged towards Officer Powell after a Taser (level 4) had been employed twice.

The question is not whether King should be have been struck. There is no doubt about that. King should have been hit with a baton in a way that incapacitated him. The question is whether the Officers did it properly. In this regard, they obviously didn’t.

First, Powell failed a baton test earlier that night on a stationary object. So it’s no surprise he lacked the training to use one properly in a real life scenario on an intoxicated, belligerent King. But one should look to Powell’s superior for that: why was an officer who demonstrated poor baton skills that same night knowingly sent into field? It is unfair to both the officer and the public at large. It could result in a civilian or officer being seriously injured. Or it could result an officer having to use deadly force when it is unnecessary.

Secondly, when the Officers stand back and assess King in the video, they’re not doing it for the hell of it. Just like standard protocol says, they are to strike King’s body a few times with their batons, then stand back and assess whether King is significantly incapacitated to be arrested. The most plausible explanation is that in the tension of the moment—tension that was caused exclusively by King—the Officers let their emotions cloud their better judgement. Each other story—racism, rogue cops, maliciousness—runs into immediate contradictory evidence.

Back to my points:

1) There is a widespread misconception that the Holiday video does not show King charging towards Officer Powell. This is evidenced by the fact nearly any video you can look up will have the first 14 seconds cut from it. In fact, I challenge anyone to find a single video—aside from the one I posted—where the first fourteen seconds aren’t cut. Secondly, until recently, there was no mention of King even charging Powell or even resisting arrest on this article. The intro section still makes no mention of it. This misconception is largely fueled by the initial news reporting of the case (See Cannon’s Book). At a basic level, there is a wide discrepancy between the public knowledge of the incident and the actual incident. The edited video and incomplete news coverage are largely responsible for that.

2) To suggest it’s only Lou Cannon or a few others who believe King resisted arrest is inaccurate. It’s not “according to Lou Cannon” that King resisted arrest and was combative. Rather “it’s according to numerous detailed accounts” that King resisted arrest. In fact, there’s not a single incident of court testimony where someone contradicts that.

3)There is a common misconception that the whole judicial process was rigged. There was good reason the first judge was removed. There was a good reason why there was a change of venue. I personally believe moving the trial to Simi Valley was a huge mistake, but that’s just my opinion. As I stated in my edit, both prosecutors and defense attorneys were surprised by this location because of the demographics of Semi Valley.

4) I agree. Mayor Bradley's comments should be moved to the riots section. While his statement is historically noteworthy, it doesn’t have much merit in regard to the facts of the arrest or the trial.

5) Only grand juries can charge people for this type of crime.

6) Again, there is a common misconception that is beating was racially motivated and the officers were charged with a racially motivated attack. The first has no factual basis. The second is patently false. Perhaps that should be stated plainly as such in the article. Nonetheless, the fact that King’s two passengers were black and unharmed is yet more evidence that race was not a significant contributing factor to the beating.

StarbuxRedux (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It's not about using "deadly force", it's about using "excessive" force, of which "deadly" is the worst-case scenario. Perhaps I should've used a better example, such as tire irons or golf clubs, but, as you say, "King should have been hit with a baton in a way that incapacitated him. The question is whether the Officers did it properly. In this regard, they obviously didn’t." Everything else you say on the matter ("most plausible explanation", etc.) is original research and against wikipedia policy.

As to your other points:

1) Again, irrelavent.

2) Nothing in the article says that.

3) Who says it was rigged? The worst I ever heard of was "biased" which isn't the same thing.

5) If "charged" is the wrong word, then correct it. What would be better, "brought to trial" or "prosecuted"? Hey, I'm no expert in LA court protocol, so whatever he did, please reword it to fit the facts.

6) Skipping the first three sentences for a moment, that last sentence is just plain wrong. That's no evidence for anything. Consider this extreme case: if a guy walked up to three people and only killed one while leaving the other two alone, that does not make him innocent of murder. Anyway, back to the rest, the article doesn't follow the misconception, so it's irrelavent. DonQuixote (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Additionally:

1. StarbuxRedux writes: "There is a widespread misconception that the Holiday video does not show King charging towards Officer Powell. This is evidenced by the fact nearly any video you can look up will have the first 14 seconds cut from it." This not a misconception. It's true. I just took a look at the first 14 seconds of the version of the tape Starbux posted. Again. I encourage other editors to do so as well. NO ONE can honestly claim that they can clearly see King charging Powell or anyone else during those 14 seconds. NO ONE can honestly claim that they can tell what King is doing. As I said in an earlier discussion, it's just BARELY possible to make out King on his hands and knees and in motion at the beginning of the tape. It's anyone's guess (based solely on the tape) whether he's charging someone or trying to avoid the blows being inflicted on him. The tape Starbux posted a link to proves exactly nothing and is not a valid reason to make any changes to the article.

2. When Starbux write that King "resisted arrest" he accuses King of a crime of which he has not been convicted. This brings up certain BLP issues which should be obvious. Although Justice Kennedy says that King "resisted" this is different from saying he committed a specific crime. Also, Supreme Court Justices do not make judgments of fact in the course of writing their opinions, they make judgments of law based upon accepting the factual record that is presented to them. Kennedy cannot be characterized as having a view on whether King resisted arrest.

3. Most of the rest of what Starbux writes consists of his own personal analysis of the news reports, the tape, and Cannon's book. It may be good analysis or poor analysis, but it is original reasearch and has no place in a Wikipedia article.

4. Starbux, I notice that your user ID is relatively new and, so far, you haven't used it to edit any other articles. This page has been somewhat plagued by tendentious, trollish editors who have been banned and vowed to return under another name. You also show seem more familiar with editing Wikipedia than one would normally expect from a new editor. So, I'll ask you directly, are you new to Wikipedia? Have you edited under another ID or as an IP either this article or elsewhere on Wikipedia? If you have been here before under another name, the other editors who work on this page plainly have a right to know that. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

First reponse to J. Anderson:

1) Nowhere is anyone imputing motive onto King when he charges towards Powell in the video. No one knew what King was thinking at the time. Nonetheless, he was charging in the direction of Powell, when Powell is at close range. That is just a fact. In the video this is evident. At the start of the unedited video, Powell is standing adjacent to King’s feet. King is on his stomach facing away from Powell. King rises, and turns 180 degrees. As King is rising, Powell brings his baton back. When King is to his feet, he is roughly 3 or 4 feet from Powell. King then runs/charges a step or two in the direction of Powell. Powell strikes King, knocking him to the ground. This is simply plain as day. Again for anyone curious: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/kingvideo.html. Realplayer allows you to slow the footage down, so the first three seconds are clear as day.

Secondly, this can be cited: Lou Cannon’s book, Official Negligence and Koon vs. US: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eon/bridgefacts/koon.html. Both are reliable sources.

In the words of Justice Kenndy: “As the videotape begins, it shows that King rose from the ground and charged toward Officer Powell. [*12] Powell took a step and used his baton to strike King on the side of his head.”

Also, you find this here: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/trials24.htm . This was already a source in the article page before I made any changes, so I assume it meets your standards. Correct?

2. Steve J. Anderson notes, “When Starbux write that King "resisted arrest" he accuses King of a crime of which he has not been convicted.”

King was speeding that night, although he was never given a ticket. I can still say King was speeding

King was driving while drunk, although he was never charged with a DUI. I can still say King was driving drunk.

King a) led Officer’s on a high-speed chase by his own admission, b) repeatedly ignored Officer’s orders to lie down, c) fought off four LADP officers, d) stood up after being tased twice, e) finally charged in the direction of Officer Powell. By wikipedia’s very own definition of resisting arrest, King was in fact resisting arrest.

In regard to the Supreme Court opinion, justices will routinely summarize the generally accepted facts and evidence of the case. These opinions receive a high-degree of scrutiny.

3) Steve J. Anderson notes, “ Most of the rest of what Starbux writes consists of his own personal analysis of the news reports, the tape, and Cannon's book. It may be good analysis or poor analysis, but it is original reasearch and has no place in a Wikipedia article

There is very little personal analysis actually. Here is my version of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodney_King&diff=255716826&oldid=255666294#cite_note-21

At no point am I taking sources out of context. I figured this allegation would come up, so I made sure all of my sources readibly available online. My sources are:

i) Koon v. US

ii) US News and World Report

iii) Official Negligence by Lou Cannon

iv) Time Magazine

v) Professor Linder’s Famous Trials Website—University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School.

It should be noted that one of Linder’s Articles was already used as a source in the original King wikipedia entry and none of the editors had any qualms with it. The source cited was an article in JURIST, a legal magazine put out by Univeristy of Pittsburg Law School. See: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/trials24.htm

vi) A New York Times article.

At no point am I coming up with novel conclusions that would constitute original research or advancing a position. My entry on the arrest and trial is largely consistent with:

• http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/trials24.htm. Again, this was already a source.
• http://books.google.com/books?id=C0tWztU6f0sC&dq=lou+cannon+official+negligence&pg=PP1&ots=a9QNlKZoQ1&source=bn&sig=4tSBei-aAREmUusUqhfGFTeVSxU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result
• http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/930531/archive_015229.htm
• http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eon/bridgefacts/koon.html

If you read any of those, then it would be perfectly apparent my article is not original research.

Perhaps the most bizzare thing is how you and several editors are willing to ignore unreliable sources that are already in the article. For example, the introduction cites a casual interview from hnn.net, in which an individual blithely asserts the officers used tasers to torture Mr. King. Did you catch that one? You and several editors also accept sources like a trivia page form imdb.com Meanwhile, each of the sources I listed match or exceed the rigor of any preexisting source in the article. Yet, the red flags still go up. I am having a hard time following your rational here.

Perhaps even more bizarre, as I noted one of the original sources before I made any changes was http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/trials24.htm. If one reads it, it largely corraborates my entry in the article.

4) The first edit I made was on the Jay-Z vs. Nas Fued article on Nov. 26. A portion of it needed cleaning up. That was my first change on wikipedia. I then stumbled across Rodney King article on the same day and made changes. I made more changes a few days later while working on a different computer. The two IP addresses I used had a single entry each from a while ago—one from ten months ago and another from 2 years ago. I have no idea how they got there, seeing that I have no interest in either of the topics that edits were under. I also removed vandalism and uncited personal allegations from Officer Powell’s article after linking it to King’s article. I picked a log-in name after I made these initial edits.

Cheers

StarbuxRedux (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This article only describes the incident and the after-effects.

1) Again, irrelevant to the tone of the article. Also, interpreting the primary source material (ie the video) is defined by wikipedia as original research.

2) Again, irrelevant to the tone of the article. This article is not about why the incident occurred. This article is about describing the incident, which is the excessive force used by the officers.

3) Again, irrelevant to the tone of the article.

Oh, and the IMDb citation is for a clip in the movie Malcolm X, which is in the cultural impact section. So the source is adequate for the purpose that it's used. As for hnn.us, the interview was about a book researching torture. "Blithely" is your opinion. DonQuixote (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

1) You do realize in the actual article, I will only cite: 1) http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/trials24.htm, 2) Lou Cannon’s book Official Negligence, and 3) http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eon/bridgefacts/koon.html on the incident. At no point, will I give my own commentary of the actual incident. I will cite their commentary, not my own. If something is needing in-depth commentary, which I don't think will be necessary, then I will provide a direct quote.

It will make sense to go ahead and create a Trials for the Rodney King Beating page. It will be along the lines of other high-profile cases where the both media reaction, legal precedings, and rulings are discussed. Maybe similiar to the Duke Lacross Case

Other than that, I will begin making changes incrementally--one line at a time--to the the Rodney King entry, where they are needed. Only the incident will be dicussed. Aspects like the videotape will be reserved for the other page. I will start making changes at the beginning at the of the article and give explanations on this dicussion page. If someone does not like them, or disagrees, I welcome their discussion. Hopefully a consensus will be reached. I would also encourage them to say how the changes specifically violate wikipedia standards or in what way the include bias.

If not, then this will go on forever.

Cheers,

StarbuxRedux (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Changed the intro

I changed the introduction for brevity and for factual inaccuracies. - The last mention of Rodney King being a construction worker was in 1991. Since then, there is no mention of him being employed. See NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/19/national/19king.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=rodney%20king&st=cse . I figure using a term like “motorist” or “man” would be more accurate. I figure “American-American former construction worker” is quite a bit to say. But if someone prefers that, then it is fine with me.

- Left out the specifics of the case and simply note, “he was the victim in an excessive force case committed by Los Angeles police officers.”

- There were already factual innaccuracies like King was “restrained and repeatedly struck.” King was not restrained. Plus, the intro made it sound like the Officers beat King then tased him.

-It will be easier to name the officers in the body of article, seeing that they are still living and had varying degrees of culpability—i.e, two fo the officers were acquitted twice, Sgt. Koon never struck King, Powell delivered most of the shots, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StarbuxRedux (talk • contribs) 16:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Changes made to arrest and trial

• Changed March 3 to March 2
• Include where King was driving
• Said where King had been before he started driving—i.e., watching basketball game and drinking.
• Gave King’s Blood Alcohol level
• Included the fact that the Singers had first spotted King speeding
• Differentiated between freeway chase and residential street chase.
• Included incident of Officer Melanie Singer drawing her gun.
• Included where Sgt. Koon takes command of the scene, and gave reason why.
• Sgt. Koon orders four LAPD officers to subdue King.
• King strikes Officer Briseno in the chest
• Koon tasers King twice.

End where King is beginning to stand back up before he charges towards officer powell. There are still more changes to be made, but I figure this is a good stopping point.

StarbuxRedux (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have just one or two problems with what I see.

First, there are frequent parenthetical comments mentioning something about "Cannon". If this refers to what I think it does, rules of conduct for police officers, the correct spelling is "Canon".

Second, who was it who drew the conclusion that specific actions by the officers were in accordance with specific canons? (Sorry, I didn't have time to follow all the links to references.) If that conclusion was drawn by a Wikipedia editor, it's original research and has to go. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, "Cannon" refers to reference #2: Lou Cannon. Official Negligence: How Rodney King and the Riots Changed Los Angeles ISBN 0813337259. DonQuixote (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, oops.

Well in that case can someone fix the citation style? Also, has anyone besides Starbux seen the book and if so do you have any idea if it's a reliable source? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have made repairs to the citation in accordance with style suggestions of WP:FOOT. I have also given the Cannon book a full cite at the bottom and linked to it on Google Books, where anyone may read the book's contents. As to it's reliability, while it does reside on the shelves of many university libraries, I have never read it and I have no opinion at this time.

Please use the manner in which the cannon book is cited as your guide for similar references that are cited multiple times.Legitimus (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Kingbeating.jpg

The image File:Kingbeating.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename

This article is more about the incident than the individual, so shouldn't the title be changed to something more like Rodney King assault, keeping this page as a redirect (since it's a likely search term)? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No offense to Mr. King, but the incident is really the only part of his life he's know for. For comparison, see Malice Green and Abner Louima. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legitimus (talk • contribs)

Yeah, I wasn't suggesting that there be a separate article for the rest of his life. It's just that my understanding of the one-event guideline was that an article title should reflect its focus on the incident, rather than the person. The other other example I can think of off the top of my head is Murder of Yang Xin (as opposed to just Yang Xin), which is not really comparable because it was a fairly minor event, but I will try to think if there are any other articles titled like that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that his life is not particularly interesting does not change the fact that this article does not answer to "who was Rodney King". I suggest this article to be renamed to Rodney King Assault, and we create a very short, clean stub for Rodney King and all we know about this historical character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.115.130 (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2009

If we were to retitle the article, there would not be any need to create a Rodney King stub; as far as I know, he's not really "notable" for anything other than this event, so any mention of him could just be in this article, no need for a separate one. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

complete quote + the BBC

the begining of the king broadcast was meaningful in itself. to wit, something like: "now folks, i know what you're going to think." i'm not sure, but i think the broadcast was definitely not his idea. also, the trial verdict was literally the first thing on the news on the BBC, at about five or six in the morning, and many people do not know the international extent of the BBC. 208.125.126.250 (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)grumpy - april 29 '09

Terminator 2 involvement

I heard on the DVD Commentary that they had caught the footage accidentally because they were going to film the T2 crew doing scenes. Its on the Unlimited edition (With the extra scenes), anyone put this, cause it gives a little more backround on how the footage was captured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.54.65 (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Alcohol

This sentence is too convoluted. Simplify it: The presumptive evidence, from a blood-alcohol level test taken 5 hours after the incident, when King registered just under the legal limit, is that as King drove his blood alcohol level was approximately 0.19—nearly two and a half times the legal limit in California.[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.94.159 (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Additions are necessary for a complete history of the event surrounding the beating

This is no Rodney King Beating page so more details are necessary here. Including the exact injuries suffered and complained in court, the testimony and police reports, and what the investigation into the LAPD revealed. Plus all additions are CITED so CITE something rather than edit facts out. Encyclopedia is comprehensive, not censored.

The videotape scenes needs to be separated into its own sub-category, including the use of the taser and post-arrest events that unfolded that night.

FACTS THAT ARE NECESSARY

1. lab tests showed "traces" of marijuana (26 ng/ml), but no indication of PCP of any other illegal drug. 2. he suffered a broken ANKLE, not a broken leg.

POSSIBLE DISPUTED EDITS TAKING PLACE 1. King "lunging," "charging" at the officers, etc.. The videotape shows none of that... To maintain unbiased its best to say:

"From the videotape it is impossible to tell whether the movement is intended as an attack or simply an effort to get away."

That is a fact, you can't tell what King is doing. Open to interpretation.

[[As to the BLT Tag: sourced to the Christopher Commission pdf. Read it, page citations are too the Commissions pages not the pdf's, which is how you cite a commission report. ]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfpack903 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"King "lunging," "charging" at the officers, etc.. The videotape shows none of that..." Actually, when the ENTIRE videotape was shown once or twice on national news, it was clear that Mr. King lunged at officers and continued to defy orders to "stay down". BUT, that was not clear in the edited videotape seen hundreds, if not thousands, of times which only showed the officers hitting Mr. King with batons. It should be noted in the article that such an edit was consciously made by American news organizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.216.198.69 (talk) 03:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

We need a source before we can include any of this in the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Concern about the point of view of the article

The offices were never convicted of police brutality, and in their perspective they where completely within their rights to subdue the "victim." Not to debate the subject but the man was under the influence of PCP and alcohol, driving above the speed limit, refused to pull over the car, and attacked the officers. The video began only midway during the confrontation.

The term police brutality implies the police used more than necessary force, which although it seems to be a fact socially, it was never established within the courts. My suggestion is we edit the article for a more neutral perspective. For example "Rodney King is an American who is known for a controversial video tape in which he is beaten by several officers" is more appropriate than "Rodney King is a BLACK American who was the VICTIM of a RACIALLY provoked police BRUTALITY." Please stick with the facts people. Cheers, 74.190.82.169 (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And again not to dwell but there seems to be an under tone of doubt in the officer's claims (everything that involves King attacking them is "alleged"), whereas King seems to have a bit more credibility than four officers of the law, his statements appear as undeniable facts. 74.190.82.169 (talk) 10:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Maintaining balance in this article has always been very difficult. However I must contend first that you have made several critical errors in your comments:

1. Yes, the officers were convicted of police brutality in the federal trial, and spend almost 3 years in jail for it.
2. King was not on PCP, Koon simply assumed he was, but his blood tests showed this was not the case. He was drunk, but not on any other drugs other than traces of marijuana, which besides being minuscule amounts likely days old, would not have caused violent behavior or any sort of widespread dissociative analgesia.
3. The sentence you claim is in the lead does not appear anywhere in the article. While racial tensions were involved in the aftermath, most evidence points to the beating not being motivated by racism.

This information is already reflected in the article. Did you even read it all the way through?

Legitimus (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added the NPOV tag onto this article due to the obvious bias and slant in this article. It definitely needs to be changed. If we can agree, I'll make it happen in the next few days. ARMY101 (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you point out other examples of "obvious bias" in the article? Legitimus already more or less refuted all the NPOV claims above. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Please provide specific details of the "NPOV problem" or remove the tag. --guyzero | talk 23:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone changed his name to "Rodney Queen". I changed it back. --Tomzc (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)tomzc

Rjanag

Rjanag removes anything that puts King in a poor light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.253.233 (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Please provide diffs to explain what your disagreement is. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see any one prove that Rodney King has not got 13 convictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.160.162 (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about this one? [3] This one did bother me just a tad too, because I watch Celebrity Rehab and heard his comments. What troubles me is that from the available evidence and information used as sources in this article, this removed sentence appears to be correct: King's claims don't appear to be true and in some cases are even contradicted by the video and physical evidence. If they are true, there is no evidence other than his word, and to the best of my knowledge in reading over the sources, this sounds like the first time he has ever claimed anything of the sort.

Also, just to assist anyone looking this over, the doctor speaking with him is feigning ignorance of the event on purpose. It is a psychological technique that is intended to get a person to open up about traumatic events.Legitimus (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It was obvious editorializing. If someone wants to insert this analysis they need to cite it to a source that makes that claim, otherwise it's just personal analysis and synthesis. Personally, I don't have an opinion either way about the topic (I don't even remember how this article got on my watchlist) and I certainly am not interested in whitewashing the article one way or the other. But I do care about maintaining Wikipedia standards here, which include neutral point of view, citing sources, and refraining from personal analysis. These are all perfectly clear policies that can be understood by anyone with a brain, so I would be very surprised to see any editor in good standing disagree with my reversion of that unsourced opinion piece. If someone can cite a reliable source making the same point, then they are welcome to re-add it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to follow up by saying I did not think it was appropriate for the original poster to pick on you specifically, Rjanag. I did not even remember who removed that section until I looked.

However to the matter at hand, having been editing for many years, I have seen WP:SYN, WP:OR and WP:V used as blunt instruments to smash opinions editors don't agree with, by adhering to them in such a strict fashion that violates the spirit of the rules. I'd compare it to filibustering. The facts of this particular matter seem rather plain under the doctrine of WP:OBVIOUS. Person said X, multiple sources contradicts this. There is no fallacy of causation as far as I can tell. There is no need to dispute this edit unless anyone wishes to contest the actual truth of it: That is, that someone thinks King's claims are true.

I didn't put the original edit in, and maybe there is a better way of saying it. But it should be said at least.Legitimus (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If what we're discussing is the above linked edit, this is a matter of clear-cut black letter Wikipedia policy. That sentence can't go in unless it's properly sourced. This is not even a close call. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a very strong opinion so I'm ok with that and will not press it any further. Maybe these various anon editors will have something to add.Legitimus (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If "multiple sources" contradict something, then it shouldn't be difficult to find and cite some of them. No one needs to blame me, or any other good-faith editors, for someone else's laziness. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As Steven Anderson said above, WP:DNFTT. These people have a habit of calling anyone who doesn't comply with their world view as "biased". Just keep your head up and keep honoring the NPOV guidelines. Oh yeah, and always ask for citeable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

86.141.127.122 provided a source for the 13 convictions, on the 8th. of

October, in 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.160.162 (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(Deindent) If you're referring to revision 318453377, the passage that was revereted was

"See http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/kingarrests.html

This shows that King has about 13 convictions"

which really didn't add anything to the article. "This shows that King has about 13 convictions"...and? What's the point that the author is trying to convey, and how does it relate to the rest of the article? DonQuixote (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

DonQuixote mostly asks questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.66.223 (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Rjanag's claim, that he does not know how the article got on his watch-list, shows how honest he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.66.223 (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no it does not show anything. It was probably added in the early days of Wikipedia when the default setting was "Watch this page" was automatically checkmarked. I have several pages that have been added that way in which all I did was make grammar and spelling corrections (this article among them). DonQuixote (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

We have established that Rodney King has 13 convictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.116.134 (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Now I finally see what you're talking about (in the future, when you want to complain about edits that happened months ago, please actually provide diffs to give context...do you think I actually remember your random IP number from 4 months ago?). I didn't remove the edit because it "portrays King in a poor light", I removed it because it violates Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources; it is a personal website set up on a university webhost (apparently maintained by "Douglas O. Linder", I don't know who that is).

Also, for what it's worth, I don't see how you're counting to arrive at "13". Only 12 incidents are listed on that page, and several (at least 5 in the last section) say no charges were filed.

Because you are clearly trolling and don't have an actual interest in discussing constructive changes to the article, I will not respond here any more. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, if you actually follow that umkc link, you'll find that it documents twelve (not thirteen) interactions with the police, not convictions. According to the page, four of them resulted in convictions. The IP is a liar as well as a troll. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Criminal

This article is a biography of King, an overview of his whole life, not merely an account of him being beaten and the events connected with it. It should include all his convictions, and arrests, as they are relevant to his life. Jim Michael (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but rewriting the intro to define King as "an American criminal" is blatant POV and undue weight. "Including" his convictions does not mean redefining him in the intro sentence. Even if he has convictions, it's not his defining characteristic and it's not what he's known for; he wouldn't have an encyclopedia article if he hadn't been beaten. By way of comparison: Lindsay Lohan has various criminal convictions, but that article doesn't begin "Lindsay Lohan is an American criminal and actress". rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Lohan is not a fair comparison, her offending is minor in comparison with King's; I don't believe she has ever been in trouble with the authorities for violent crimes. I believe she was already a famous actress before she was first arrested. King has never had a notable career, and would probably never have been beaten by police if hadn't already been a criminal - they were chasing him because he was breaking the law. Whilst the beating is the thing that King is most known for, his crimes have received a considerable amount of media coverage. His criminality is of significant relevance to his life. Jim Michael (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to ask for a third opinion or seek input from one of the editors who has been active at this page (see the discussions above). In the meantime, it is not really appropriate for you to continue inserting this language in other pages [4] when you know it's being challenged. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

He would never have been beaten by the police if he hadn't already been a criminal? Really? Did the cops have some supernatural, psychic way of determining his criminal record before they even had a chance to check his ID and find out who he was? Please take a look at WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Calling someone a criminal in the lead of a bio is kind of like calling someone a terrorist in the lead. We don't even do that to Osama bin Laden. Of course, we can take this to the neutral point of view noticeboard, if you really want to waste your time, but I think we both know what the outcome will be. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

maybe a section on how the media misreported this incident?

the media did not give a full account of what happened that night and instead decided to air only a portion of the tape and kept talking about it in terms of "the four white officers who beat black motorist, Rodney King...." made it seem like it was a racially motivated incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.255.231 (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

King's modern-day recounting

I felt some analysis of King's modern day comments about the events are needed. I have read a fair bit about this case, and I also watch Celebrity Rehab. Some of King's remarks on the program just never sat right with me and a few are highly dubious. For example, he claims he surrendered right away, lay flat on his face and never physically resisted, yet his two companions did just that and were taken into custody without any violence. This doesn't add up: Why did the officers decide that he needed to be beaten and not the other two if they all surrendered? He also claims they were shouting threats at him from the car during the chase, but this is doubtful at the speed they were going at, and his two friends would have heard that as well. Likewise, there has been no mention of any such thing in any statements provided by him or anyone else previous to Celebrity Rehab, as far as I know (enlighten me if there was).

I'm not saying he's lying, but rather he may be confabulating due to his intoxication at the time, and being told numerous things by other people, including some potential witness coaching and/or suggestive questioning.

I just feel some commentary about the lack of evidence supporting his comments should be made under the doctrine of WP:OBVIOUS. Legitimus (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

How it was written makes it seem as though you are implying that he was lying. This isn't WP:Obvious, this more like WP:OR. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Portions and "brutality"

What portions of the tape were shown? Did these portions prove that the officers were brutal - irregardless of the portions not shown?

Was King the "victim" of police brutality, or should we be neutral and say that one side makes this assertion, while another side denies it?

What is the responsibility of a suspect, when police try to arrest him? Does he have an unlimited right to resist? If not, do police have any authority to use force? How much force? Does it depend on the behavior of the suspect? If so, in what respects? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Two of the officers were tried and convicted in federal court. This makes their guilt not a matter of opinion, but a matter of record.

Regarding your last paragraph, this article is a biography of Rodney King, not an academic debating society dealing with the limits of the use of force by police. We report the findings of reliable sources here; we don't engage in midnight, dorm-room bull sessions.

And there's no such word as irregardless. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a correction, irregardless is a word, and it's one of those strange words that means the same thing without the prefix (regardless/irregardless, flammable/inflammable). DonQuixote (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No, irregardless is only a word in the same sense that "ain't" and "gonna" are words. See irregardless. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the entry myself. Irregardless is actually less of a word than ain't which has ancient antecedents and is not just a recent, nonstandard neologism. Dictionaries overwhelmingly label it incorrect and give instructions such as "use regardless instead." --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected, but within the context of informal speech or writing, debating the "correctness" of "irregardless" or "ain't" or "gonna" is a little nerdish. DonQuixote (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my spelling, but my questions remain unanswered:

• What portions of the tape were shown?
• Did these portions prove that the officers were brutal - regardless of the portions not shown?
• Was King the "victim" of police brutality, or should we be neutral and say that one side makes this assertion, while another side denies it?
• What is the responsibility of a suspect, when police try to arrest him?
• Does he have an unlimited right to resist?
• If not, do police have any authority to use force?
• How much force? Does it depend on the behavior of the suspect?
• If so, in what respects?

I'm aware that two officers were found guilty of something in the second, federal trial - following the rioting over the first trial's verdict.

Perhaps I should be more specific:

1. Was the guilty verdict based on a finding that (A) the law on the use of force by police against a person resisting arrest is a good one, but (B) the two officers used more force than that law allows? Or,
2. Did the jury decide that (C) Regardless of what the law was at the time, the two officers used more force than is morally justifiable?

If such questions are beyond the scope of this article, then I'll ask them somewhere else. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You're asking all this in the wrong place. This is an encyclopedia, which just aggragates all the info. You're better off asking a journalist or a qualified professor or a lawyer. DonQuixote (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ed, you've got over 50,000 edits here and should know damn well that none of those questions (save one) have anything to do with editing an encyclopedia article. We go with what the reliable sources say, period. The one question that merits attention is whether King was the victim of police brutality. The officers were convicted of violating King's civil rights. By beating him up. The common parlance for that is "police brutality." We don't second-guess juries here. Once you've been convicted of larceny, Wikipedia calls you a thief. We don't say that one side claims you are while the other disputes it. You're insisting that the officers get a new trial here on the talk page for this article. You should know better. That's not what we do. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't he a victim of Police Brutality if the officers (well, two of them) were already convicted of violating King's civil rights?. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to re-open any cases. I am not an advocate, but merely a contributor. If you've seen any of my 50,000 edits (many on controversial topics), you know that I just want to present both sides of each controversy.

Sometimes one side of a controversy gets disproportionate attention, and the other side is marginalized (verging on censorship). Without endorsing that minority view or giving it "equal validity", I'll frequently try to give it a mention in the article.

I wonder whether if you'd like to help me with this, i.e., assuming that it's within our NPOV policy. You know, describing all points of view fairly.

Here's a start:

• Rohler at UNCW wrote: "Analysts say police brutality has its roots in racism, poor training, slack departmental discipline and fraternal traditions that encourage officers to look the other way when their colleagues turn violent." The Story of Rodney King

Now if this goes beyond the scope of Rodney King and should be in another article, say so, and I'll go there instead. But the Rodney King case is where I daresay most people start when they think about issues of police arresting subjects who wind up getting beaten or shot: use of force, resisting arrest, excessive force, police brutality.

I'm not advocating any POV but just trying describe all viewpoints fairly, which (last time I checked) was the non-negotiable bedrock policy of Wikipedia. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That'll probably be better in the police brutality article, which this article links to. DonQuixote (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Race v ethnicity

Norum (talk · contribs) has been deleting "Ethnicity - African American" from the Infobox:Person template in this article. Although he is editing against a stable consensus by doing so, he has not seen fit to open a discussion here, but continues to revert to a version of his own preference and flasely accuse me of violating 3RR in an edit summary. Consequently I'm opening the discussion myself. His argument (as I understand it) is that there's an important difference between race and ethnicity. My view is that since there's no field in the template for race, and since the difference between race and ethnicity is essentially a social construct, the sensible thing to do is to stay with the consensus, stable version. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In regard to the comments Norum (talk · contribs) left on User:Steven J. Anderson's user page. When I last checked "white" was a composition of all the colours of the colour spectrum, not a 'race' and certainly not a definition of "ethnicity". Skin coloration is determined primarily by the amount and type of melanin and has a geneticaly predetermined predisposition that has some relationship to race as well as environmental and dietary influences. I think maybe [Norum] is confused about the 3 strikes and your out provisions, this sadly does not seem to have a provision to silliness otherwise I think it may have already been applied. When I look on WP for definitions of "race", "ethnicity", and "human skin color" I see that quite thorough explanations are provided in WP articles. It is not like you have to look further than either WP or just reach for a dictionary. ORIGIN early 16th cent.(denoting a group with common features): via French from Italian razza, of unknown ultimate origin. USAGE In recent years, the associations of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts such as race relations or racial equality, it is now often replaced by other words that are less emotionally charged, such as people(s) or community. Ethnicity is a noun ( pl. -ties) and describes the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition. It is also quite well described at WP Ethnicity as; "An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and a tradition of common ancestry (corresponding to a history of endogamy). Members of an ethnic group are conscious of belonging to an ethnic group; moreover ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness."
I suggest to [Norum] that he tries that out and indeed may find things are less problematic. Felix505 (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I am correcting an incorrect info, not deleting it. It is you who keeps deleting it and reverting to incorrect one. As for King, his race is black and his ethnicity is unknown, unless we know that his heritage is from (for example) Congo, South Africa, Senegal etc etc. You just proved my earlier point. Lets say you take a white person from Sweden and a white person from Portugal. You can not say they are of the same ethnicity, just because they are both white. One has a swedish ethnicity while the other one has a portuguese one. Saying that they have the same ethnicity just does not make sense, because they have a totally different heritage. Look at the following: Sylvia Saint, Puma Swede and other actresses. This is the best proof of my point and this is the right way. For instance, Puma Swede is born in Sweden, but her ethnicity is Finnish, because HER PARENTS are Finnish. Do I need to make my point any clearer? Norum 00:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

So far as your comparison to the articles on the two porn stars (not actresses) are concerned, please have a look at WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The fact that the issue is handled differently there is not proof of anything. But you know what, Norum? Just to show you what a patient guy I am, I'm going to let you win this one. This little piece of information is not vital to the article, so I'm happy for the infobox to be silent on the question. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If you can prove King's actual ethnicity (south african, zambian, zimbabwean or whatever) then we can talk. As for the porn actresses...yes, they are actresses. Just because someone is in the porn business, does not make that person a porn star. According to you, every person in the business is a porn star, which is just sad, Anderson. If a woman appears in two porn flicks hardly makes her a porn star. Norum 03:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that User:Steven J. Anderson needs to prove anything in regard to rodney king's ethnicity. Indeed that would be personal research. What we are tasked with here as WP editors is to provide information that is in context and is attributable to recognised and reliable sources. We may agree or disagree with a standpoint or assertion made in the material or within the article but as editors we may place something into an article even if we disagree with it as it may have a rightful place in discussion or the history or is within the context of the subject. WP is not a 'blog' or a discussion board. For example I am not a a great fan of 'creationism' but I would readily put into an article information that is presented and put forward by 'creationists' when discussing evolution as creationists have a vocal interest in the subject. I may consider them to be a bit crazy and totally wrong but WP strives to be encyclopaedic, so as an editor I will write it up. User:Norum you seem to be struggling with that aspect of things at WP so maybe you need to seek more appropriate forums for your ideas that will allow your thoughts to have more latitude and afford more opportunity for free expression. Even the WP talk pages are meant to be on topic and this matter of R. Kings ethnicity should really not be contentious in any way. Clarifying his ethnicity as "African American" is just drawing on information readily available in the public domain. There are a stack of academic discussions on race/race relations/ the LA riots and more that refer to R.King as an "African American" and some as a "black American" and some as just plain "black". I gave a recognised and reasonable definition of Ethnicity above. That definition is easily citable, but really any modern dictionary should turn it up without much effort. It is probably something a 5th grader would learn at a school. There are many available references to R.King being an "african american", indeed to the point that is is a bit of a no-brainer really that the man is commonly identified as an african american and quite likely self identified as such at the time. So User:Norum, User:Steven J. Anderson does not need your 'permission', consent or agreement here, he just needs to cite. I assume he has not because he is tired of your hectoring and nonsense and has just acceded to you in the benefit of harmony and to appease emotions arising from your apparently troubled views on ethnicity. Again, for the record: "An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and a tradition of common ancestry (corresponding to a history of endogamy). Members of an ethnic group are conscious of belonging to an ethnic group; moreover ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness." Norum maybe it would be a good idea to check your guitar stings again, I think they might be crossing over each other. Felix505 (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Rodney King article in Wikipedia clearly written by a white person with a lot of anger against black people

The article cherry picks comments from near tabloid media sources to build a narration where conclusion has already been made. You start with labeling his father "alcoholic" and source "The Independent". The rest of the article continues to blast all the negatives of Rodney king. Go watch videos about race on Youtube and you might catch this same author with his/her typical racially offensive rant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.37.8 (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well look, are you gonna whine, or do you want to fix this? This is after all the "encyclopedia anyone can edit." If you have a serious objection, let's go one issue at a time and keep in mind that if you want to contest a fact in the article, you need a reliable source showing the contrary.Legitimus (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Edcanas, 10 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Hello, for the cultural impact section of the wiki page, there has been a new video released by american rap artist Thurz of U-N-I as a viral video to promote his Thurz' "Rodney King" record from the album "LA Riot" The video was released on youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC_hKECtdV0 The original Rodney King booking image was also recreated and placed on the site www.theriotstartshere.com . Edcanas (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I found a good enough reference for it and mentioned it in the culture section. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page. You might instead want to put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk, or put the {{edit semi-protected}} template back up on this page and either way someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I doubt whether the source you used passes WP:RS, although I don't dispute the underlying facts being asserted. The cultural impact section has been turning into a WP:COATRACK for every brief mention of the incident in every film and song, notable and non-notable, most of which tell us nothing about the biography of Rodney King. It's really nothing but a WP:TRIVIA section. I've deleted most of the material and put what was left into another section. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Confusing unsourced statement and Edit Protection

The article says, "He contacted the police about a videotape of the incident but was dismissed." The next source cited doesn't mention this. What does it mean? Was he offering the police a copy of his tape? Was he asking them for their own footage?

Also, both the article and the discussion page are semi-protected. To even add this request I had to look at the URL format of a different article's 'edit discussion' page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.250.72.120 (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, he was trying to give them the video so Internal Affairs could handle this, but they turned him down. You are correct that it's no in that newpaper source, but I do remember reading that. Perhaps one of the other editors who has read the books knows.

Also, this talk page is not protected. I just tested this. When you have no user name, it warns you, and may prompt you to enter a Capcha, but you can still edit. A real semi-protection would not be fooled by your "trick."Legitimus (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Lack of information regarding federal case and the definition of "excessive force" in LA

I think one key topic this article does not address is a point raised previously by Uncle Ed. I apologize that I am new to Wiki, and I was unsure how to post continuing that dialogue.

Regarding the Federal trial, this article mentions that two officers were found guilty. It mentions that the trial discussed aspects of the police training.

It does not

• report on the finding of facts of the court, present the arguments regarding the police training
• state clearly why two officers were convicted and two found innocent
• discuss the burden of guilt concern charge of civil rights violation
• or establish the standard of police brutality used in the trial.

Furthermore, no details are given related to the specifics of law leading to the verdict of innocence for the charge of excessive force LA. One might argue that this omission implies that the LA trial was a farce. The article could, once again, discuss the legal standard for determining excessive force. Again, we return to the issue of the officer's training. In a sense, the officers are pre-authorized to use force by rubric. What is that rubric and did they cross a line?

These certainly are the subject of very poignant questions related to Rodney King that merit topical inclusion. These questions can be address purely with facts, thus meriting inclusion in encyclopedia.

My best understanding from reading about the topic of police brutality is that the police crossed a line in the number of times they hit Rodney, not that they hit him. I would personally like to know more about the official record from the Federal case.

I for one am not a legal researcher, so I do not know where to get a transcript of the trial or official court documents, which could help shed light on these questions. The internet, to my finding, is devoid of any reporting as to the substance of the trials, but rather speaks only to the verdict. If anyone can help produce these documents, I would welcome posting them in some way here as a step in that direction.

NerdChieftain (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're interested in editing the article along these lines, I recommend that you begin your preparations by reviewing WP:SUMMARY, WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY, WP:NOR and WP:SYN. Should you do so, here, in summary, is what you will learn. First, a Wikipedia article is not the place for a detailed, point-by-point dissection of the trial. Second, you may not, without violating Wikipedia's editorial policies, go to primary sources like the trial transcript, police training materials on use of force, and legal documents regarding excessive force, draw what you think are reasonable conclusions from those documents and put those conclusions in a Wikipedia article. To do so violates Wikipedia's policy forbidding original research. Should you, however, find that another writer has already engaged in this exercise and published his work in some reliable source, a description of his work might be eligible for introduction into this article. Likewise, you may not, without violating Wikipedia's editorial policies, construct an argument either supporting or opposing the legitimacy or validity of either a trial or a verdict reached at that trial. However, if some writer has constructed such an argument and gotten it published in a reliable source, it may be appropriate to mention it here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Steven J. Anderson, that is an appalling misrepresentation of WP:PRIMARY. I suggest you have another look at that policy yourself. Deterence ^Talk 11:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong. Also the policy I'm describing is not found atWP:PRIMARY; it's found at WP:SYN and WP:NOR, and I assure you I'm describing it accurately. You're also obviously some kind of sockpuppet, since you're pretending to explain policy to an experienced editor in your second edit on Wikipedia. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

How silly of me to think you were referring to WP:PRIMARY when you said "WP:PRIMARY". Regardless, NerdChieftain raises some interesting points about some glaring omissions in the article vis-a-vis the trials:

• report on the finding of facts of the court, present the arguments regarding the police training
• state clearly why two officers were convicted and two found innocent
• discuss the burden of guilt concern charge of civil rights violation
• or establish the standard of police brutality used in the trial.

This information is clearly relevant to the article and it does not violate WP:PRIMARY. Indeed, one might reasonably argue that, while the court transcripts are primary sources for an article about the trial, they are secondary sources for an article about Rodney King and the incident where he was assaulted by the police officers. This is a fairly subtle point, but it should not be too subtle for an "experienced editor" to recognise. Regardless, WP:PRIMARY is not a blanket ban on all information from primary sources.

Further more, much of your criticism of NerdChieftain amounts to a straw man argument. In future, please limit your criticism of other comments to what editors are actually saying rather than your own wild speculative inferences.

Btw, not every new account is a sock puppet. Some of them are former editors who have returned from an extended hiatus and do not remember a password they haven't used in years. Deterence ^Talk 02:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Just like to point out that if you read any of the above in detail, you'll find that WP:PRIMARY is a subsection of WP:NOR which also has another subsection entitled WP:SYN. Basically he pointed out that the above is using primary sources (as defined in WP:PRIMARY) to synthesize (as explained in WP:SYN) original research, which is against WP:NOR (no original research). DonQuixote (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

DonQuixote, thank you for your informative comment. But, I fail to see how WP:NOR, WP:PRIMARY or WP:SYN constitute a blanket prohibition on the use of court-room materials or police training materials. The four omissions listed by NerdChieftain can be addressed, so some extent, by reference to those sources without violation of Wikipedia policy. This is especially so with regard to those clear and unambiguous questions that are addressed by an impartial Judge. Deterence ^Talk 03:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If we go to the primary sources, then all we can do is list things...which doesn't make a very good article. Trying to connect the things in the list is synthesis, which is against "no original research". The only thing we can do is report on how reliable sources (WP:RS, WP:SECONDARY, etc.) have linked the things in the list. DonQuixote (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That will often be the case, but that is not necessarily the case. For instance, when the trial transcript records the trial Judge saying, "The burden of proof in this case is XYZ", then no synthesis is required - we have a clear and unambiguous declaration of the standard for the burden of proof for a trial. Having a secondary source repeat this declaration is not necessary and adds nothing to the reliability of the statement.

I'm not trying to open the gates to a flood of primary sources, but I do remind people that WP:PRIMARY merely requires the use of cautious discretion rather than imposing a blanket prohibition on the use of any primary sources. Deterence ^Talk 22:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Be bold and include those. But also be aware of WP:SUMMARY, as mentioned above. Remember that this is an encyclopedia article and not an archive of the sources. In fact, I'll just quote Steven J. Anderson "I recommend that you begin your preparations by reviewing WP:SUMMARY, WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY, WP:NOR and WP:SYN." DonQuixote (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Quote citation

For the quote, "turned what would otherwise have been a violent, but soon forgotten, encounter between Los Angeles police and Rodney King into one of the most widely watched and discussed incidents of its kind," (sic), the speaker appears to be GEORGE HOLLIDAY & ROBY MASSAROTTO. Sirenity11 (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Inadequate lead

The introduction does not mention that the violence happened during King's resistance to the policemen trying to arrest him for outrageous law violations. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Pathetic troll. Deterence ^Talk 01:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

What? The current introduction makes an impression that malicious policemen have beaten a poor ("...social inequalities...") innocent (no reason mentioned) guy, and that racist ("...black community...") jurors acquitted them. However, the body of the article (beginning of the "Incident" section) clearly shows that the situation was quite different. This remark is not to accuse or excuse any of the participants, but to explain that the introduction does not adequately summarize the article. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 06:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, there's nothing about "malicious" policemen or "poor innocent" guys or "racist" jurors. The intro described an incident and its effects on culture. And you're quote mining. To put everything back into context "...causing public outrage that raised tensions between the black community and the LAPD and increased anger over police brutality and social inequalities in Los Angeles." That bit says nothing about the incident (no "poor innocent" guy and no "racist" jurors) but describes the effects ("causing") on the public and racial tensions between the black community and the LAPD. DonQuixote (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think, an unpunished brutality of black policemen towards a reach white guy would not raise tensions between the black community and the LAPD and would not increase anger over social inequalities. Right? And since, as you admit, the introduction "says nothing about the incident", the reader is free to guess what I have described earlier. This indicates that the lead is inadequate. The article also makes clear that the brutality was not causeless, but triggered by King's actions (traffic law violations, disobedience; moreover, no harm was done to his friends), which is an important circumstance not reflected in the lead. Omission of important details can make introductions like "Bonnie and Clyde were a couple ambushed and killed in Louisiana by law officers", which, being true, would be an obviously misleading opening.

In addition, the first sentence, "King ... is an American best known for his involvement in a police brutality case involving the Los Angeles Police Department", is rather silly (not only stylistically). Was King one of the policemen? :-) He and LAPD are both described as "involved" — maybe on the same side? :-) Is it important that he was an American? :-) Is it his only characteristic? :-) Perhaps, "victim of" would be more informative and less silly than "American involved"? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean to say ... you're actually serious?! The "outrageous law violations" King committed were speeding (something even my grandmother has been ticketed for) and an inference that he had been drinking, (based on the subsequent, and highly dubious, scientific extrapolation over a period of 5 hours - he was actually under the legal limit at the time of his arrest). As for King "resisting arrest" - have you actually SEEN the video? Newsflash: trying to ward off the blows from half a dozen police officers beating you with their police batons over an extended period of time is NOT resisting arrest. It never ceases to amaze me how many people think the police officers were justified in using that level of force in the Rodney King beating. Deterence ^Talk 09:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Driving at 117 mi/h on highway and 80 mi/h through residential streets with blood alcohol level nearly two and a half times the legal limit is "outrageous law violations". All numbers are taken from the article itself. If you think that there is something wrong, edit the article and provide appropriate supporting information. I have not seen the video, because I did not find any links to it from the article.

Concerning your "Newsflash" and "justified". If you read attentively what I wrote before, you may notice that I have no intention "to accuse or excuse any of the participants". Moreover, look at the earlier section started by NerdChieftain, where (s)he writes: "My best understanding from reading about the topic of police brutality is that the police crossed a line in the number of times they hit Rodney, not that they hit him," and you did not contest that. So please set aside your emotional response to you own fantasies and consider the facts objectively. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Okie...you're quote mining again. I never said that the "introduction" says "nothing about the incident". Are you seriously trying to pull that off when the text that you're misquoting is directly above your comment? I said that "the bit that you quote mined" says "nothing about the incident". [deleted Gerardw (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)] DonQuixote (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope to hear your apologies for your insulting words immediately. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Only after you apologize for misquoting me and the article in general. DonQuixote (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I think, now we will continue in a more civilized way. I apologize for using quotes by their meaning in setting of the surrounding text instead of the particular sentences. As a pedantic excuse of misquoting you, I admit that when I read your message from 29 May, which started with statement(s) about the intro, I assumed that the colloquial word "bit" referred to something more general than just one phrase without connection with the previous text.

Please explain your point of view:

• Do you oppose inclusion of a short description of the events before the beating? If yes, why?
• Do you think that the impression I described on 29 May is improbable or contradicts the present introduction section? If yes, why?
• What is your opinion about the first sentence on the opening? Do you think that "victim" would be better than "American involved"?
• Do you agree that if the article is named "Rodney King", and not "Rodney King beating videotaped by George Holliday", its introduction should not focus on just the beating and what happened afterwards?

— Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead is fine as is. Gerardw (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)