Well, during the Rodney King riots in the U.S. it was basically the same situation as in London... people (including some of my friends, I'm ashamed to say) saw it as an opportunity. The police were overwhelmed and couldn't be everywhere at once, so throngs of (mostly young) people headed down to their local strip mall and grabbed anything they could carry. The justification my friends gave? Those places were being looted by other people anyway, so you might as well get something for yourself in the process. Plus some of them felt they were "sticking it to the man." They saw themselves as protesting the Rodney King verdict. If cops could get off for killing someone why shouldn't law abiding citizens get off for stealing a couple of items?

The rationalizations were, of course, ludicrous. But I think the whole rioting thing is a complex issue. My friends aren't thugs. Aside from the riots, the most trouble they've ever been in with the law since then are parking violations. Certainly there were genuine gang-bangers and other thugs out during the riots looking for trouble, but I think a lot of the rioters (both in London and Los Angeles) were just normal kids who succumbed to the excitement and temptation of mob mentality (see this article about the psychology of mobs).

>> ^hpqp:

@Yogi: see the video below, it's the same street the night before. The people who wrecked this street were simply profiting from the situation to steal stuff, nothing more.
<div id="widget_606364081">

</div>


There were people who profited during the Rodney King Riots...doesn't mean there wasn't a deeper story there. Even a deeper story than minorities vs the police. Why is that so hard for everyone to understand? Images can sometimes make things clearer and sometimes distort complex events by giving only a few angles.

I like how you add "nothing more" as if arguing what you state as utter fact is pointless. Sorry I'm coming into this with an open mind, not just going "No! Nothing will compromised my prejudices!"

per wikipedia:
"N.W.O." (New World Order) is a song by the Industrial metal band Ministry, released as the second single off the album Psalm 69. The single was Ministry's biggest hit, topping out on the Billboard Modern Rock chart at #11.

The song is a protest against then President George H. W. Bush. The song features audio samples of his voice, with him repeating "A new world order" over and over again at the end of the song. At this point of the song in the video, Bush is portrayed by an actor with an enormous papier-mâché head, grabbing his crotch and waving his arms. The majority of the video is a mix of police beatings, riots, and gunfights. It also includes a scene in which a woman dressed as the Statue of Liberty is beaten by police in a manner similar to the famous amateur video of Rodney King being beaten by police.

The music video was featured on Beavis and Butt-Head along with Just One Fix off the same album, although the credits for each song call the album "Psalms 69".

"N.W.O." was featured in the soundtrack of the film Cool World (Songs from the Cool World).

"It's alright! It's alright!" in the song is a clip of Dennis Hopper in Apocalypse Now when he first greets the PBR boat.

Jury nullification is a mixed bag at best. Back in the "good old days" when black people were being lynched, if any of the killers were actually brought to trial they were often found not guilty by all white juries. Those are probably the most obvious examples. The criminal trial of the cops who beat Rodney King and the OJ Simpson trial are often cited as cases of jury nullification as well. I'm sure others could cite more examples, but it's not necessary because we all know it happens.

This is not to say that I think jury nullification is always bad. In the above examples the crimes were assault and murder, which most would agree are crimes that should be punished. It is just to punish those who deliberately harm or kill. But in the cases of "crimes" that aren't crimes at all, like marijuana possession, or soliciting prostitution, or playing the numbers, etc, I would wholeheartedly embrace jury nullification. I believe laws against pot usage, prostitution, and gambling are unjust, so jury nullification is perfect in those instances.

I know many lawyers and legal scholars think that jury nullification in any form is a perversion of justice. They'll say that if citizens don't like the laws then they need to tell their legislators to rewrite them, and we should NOT be changing the laws in the jury room. But I don't care. I still have my free will. With a SNAP of a couple neurons I nullify all their arguments. >> ^Trancecoach:

Jury Nullification is the great gift to our legal system. It's too bad more jurors don't know about it or exercise their right to implement it.

>> ^eric3579:

Can't we all just get along?


Yes, Rodney King.

>> ^bcglorf:
I suspect you aren't understanding me. An individual police officer committed a crime. The police force only has two options:
1.Investigate the crime.
2.Don't investigate the crime.
I am observing that there is a crowd on here that responds as follows:
1.Condemn the police for investigating(conflict of interest).
2.Condemn the police for not investigating(double standard).
When an individual police officer commits a crime, there is NOTHING the police force as a whole can do that doesn't confirm and further implicate them in some people's eyes.


That's an apologist answer and a straw man argument. It's not about them not investigating, it's about mitigating liability and damages through their political influence. That's why these two officers are facing misdemeanor charges instead of felony charges, which is exactly what you or I would face if we did the exact same thing.

I'd like for you to read the Christopher Commission's investigation of the mores and culture of the LAPD after Rampart and Rodney King. It's eye opening. That is if you can find it online.

Oh, and I think you're confused about the Internal Affairs Group. First that pertains to state and city police. I'm not sure if the TSA has an IAG, but the second cop seemed to be working for an airport police department so maybe he does. It's hard to keep the bureaucratic morass straight. Even if they did, the IAG for local police is under the purview of the police commission, and the people who make up the IAG are police officers who cycle in and out of the precincts, so there's an obvious conflict of interest there.

On an individual basis it'll watch the cop more. But overall it'll be watching whatever is in front of the car, whether that be the cop or the people he's pulling over. If they outfitted the cops with cameras on their uniforms it'd be more indicative of them being highly interested in the cops interactions at all times.

I think the dash cam was outfitted because as an expense versus return, it's cheaper to outfit the car with a cam to note the happenings of common traffic stops (because this is about the only useful thing the forward facing cams are going to reliably be watching) without having to have another officer in the car. So they get 2 cars, split up the pair and have double the presence.

If the cops opinion didn't matter, they could just use the dashcam footage in every case (when applicable) and the officer being in court would be a formality. The dashcam is only brought out when something goes very wrong, as you've noted. If it's impartial and truthful why not let it stand as evidence in all court cases? They do it with traffic cameras.


>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I can see why you would have that opinion. I myself disagree only because, in the past, a cop's opinion was the only one that mattered. Unless, in the few rare circumstances, a powerful individual was pulled over (Like a mayor or police chief.) Think on this--who is the camera around most often, the civilian or the cop? Who does it watch more?
(All of these incidents were on the news)
For example, Rodney King may not have been a dash cam, but the police were still caught. A cop nearby my residence pulled a drunk driver from her vehicle--through the window. He had all right to do so, because she tried to gun it and was behind the wheel of a dangerous weapon. But who gets suspended? In a booking jail in my home state, a paraplegic was dumped out of a wheelchair... Cop got a felony. Later, a man threw himself from a wheelchair with a cop trying to settle prevent either from getting harmed, and guess who gets suspended? (It was on tape and someone had to take the fall.) In a prison, four officers (Alibis) go into a cell when the power goes out (Dumbasses, backup power is a beautiful thing,) and beat a murderer to death.
The list goes on and on, and since most cameras do not affect the average joe, I tend to believe they are there for a reason beyond the cop's best interest. Remember, even if the cop is justified, "Cameras never lie."
Now, the Police Departments do benefit from dash cams, simply because they can limit liability.

>> ^Porksandwich:
I dunno I think the dash cam is there for non-biased record, it is as much for the cop as it is for the person he stopped. But I also think that they've let a lot of officers run solo because of the dash cam, since they don't need a second officer to file their report on any incident that might occur. As long as it happens mostly on camera and the audio is captured. You'll notice they have multiple units of single occupied vehicles show up to situations where their dash cam is unlikely to record anything useful....like responding to noise complaints and other such minor things...car can't record that without being positioned very deliberately.
The only downside to dash cams are that the footage can be tampered with or "lost" when it's convenient for the police. I haven't heard of any system where the footage is captured direct from car with no human hands/eyes being involved in it's cataloging and tamper resistant storage (nothing is foolproof, but it should at least be something deliberate to cause loss of records where it's not explained away as inefficiencies and mistakes).

I can see why you would have that opinion. I myself disagree only because, in the past, a cop's opinion was the only one that mattered. Unless, in the few rare circumstances, a powerful individual was pulled over (Like a mayor or police chief.) Think on this--who is the camera around most often, the civilian or the cop? Who does it watch more?

(All of these incidents were on the news)
For example, Rodney King may not have been a dash cam, but the police were still caught. A cop nearby my residence pulled a drunk driver from her vehicle--through the window. He had all right to do so, because she tried to gun it and was behind the wheel of a dangerous weapon. But who gets suspended? In a booking jail in my home state, a paraplegic was dumped out of a wheelchair... Cop got a felony and deserved it. Later, a man threw himself from a wheelchair while a cop was trying to prevent either from getting harmed, and guess who gets suspended? (It was on tape and someone had to take the fall because, even though you could see what happened, a quick glance suggested it was his fault. And people tend to have short attention spans.) In a prison, four officers (Alibis) go into a cell when the power goes out (Dumbasses, backup power is a beautiful thing,) and beat a murderer to death.

The list goes on and on, and since most cameras do not affect the average joe, I tend to believe they are there for a reason beyond the cop's best interest. Remember, even if the cop is justified, "Cameras never lie."

Now, the Police Departments do benefit from dash cams, simply because they can limit liability.


>> ^Porksandwich:
I dunno I think the dash cam is there for non-biased record, it is as much for the cop as it is for the person he stopped. But I also think that they've let a lot of officers run solo because of the dash cam, since they don't need a second officer to file their report on any incident that might occur. As long as it happens mostly on camera and the audio is captured. You'll notice they have multiple units of single occupied vehicles show up to situations where their dash cam is unlikely to record anything useful....like responding to noise complaints and other such minor things...car can't record that without being positioned very deliberately.
The only downside to dash cams are that the footage can be tampered with or "lost" when it's convenient for the police. I haven't heard of any system where the footage is captured direct from car with no human hands/eyes being involved in it's cataloging and tamper resistant storage (nothing is foolproof, but it should at least be something deliberate to cause loss of records where it's not explained away as inefficiencies and mistakes).

and ya, looked at his mug. its fucking road rash, which is par for the course cuz his face ate pavement. he didnt get a beating dumbass. It just looks bad. theyre fucking surface scabs boo damn hoo. this isnt in any way comparable to say battered wives or something. his "wounds" wont even leave scars and he's got a shiner that will dissipate in like 2 days. he's not a fucking martyr. he's some dumbass who had a bit too much to drink to be driving and then refused to complete an FST and then repeatedly resisted arrest.

do i feel sympathy for the guy? a little. I mean only sick people enjoy the physical injury of another. so ya, sucks that he got slammed like that and subsequently got rashed and ko'd. but for fucks sake the guy is no rodney king

>> ^dag:

I've spent a couple months in Thailand- and have friends in Bangkok. It's really disheartening to see this kind of strife happening. It's a place where Buddhist monks in saffron robes are walking down almost very street- lots of smiles and laughter.
I know they're only human and capable of the worst like all of is- but nationally I never thought they had this in them.


I didn't think the Greeks where modernly capable of the row either.

This sort of thing is common in the US, only they call it a riot or a street gang. Of course I'm speaking of Rodney King, or all the other riots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots

I don't know much about Australia, but I would assume that the Aborigine have seen their fair share too. (http://www.australian-news.net/Redfern_riots.htm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Riots_in_Australia

Riots, revolts, from my arm chair they all look the same; however I have the cognitive power to know that is not true in many places. People have grievances, they should be aired or they end up like this video.

I 100% agree with that point of view. You could get a similar reaction from any group of people that feel persecuted. Take for instance the Rodney King riots. The Rodney King incident was just the spark that lit the powderkeg of centuries of built-up racism and oppression.

I'm not condoning the violence in either situation at all. I'm just saying that in this instance it has much deeper causes then most "religion-made-them-do-it" Sifters are willing to admit.

>> ^vlsd:

If these people weren't losing their shit over some cartoon, they would be angry at something else. The anger came first, the cartoons are simply a pretext to express it. I am not defending their behavior, but given the shitty conditions in the middle east and the rampant racism in the western world, I can almost see how someone would explode at the smallest perceived threat to their culture.

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along?"
-Rodney King

This is obviously what Steele was referring to, and it's a shame he's so inarticulate because that's honestly a very good idea. I presume he has people around him that get paid to help him avoid this shit. They should be fired. He'd have been far better off saying something like "To quote Rodney King, 'can we all get along?'" Anyone who took issue with that statement would be as bat-shit as these Republicans out there taking issue with every damn thing Obama says or does.

Maybe in the alternate history conservatives believe in, the reason Rodney King is famous is because the way the police dealt with him was a shining example of humans settling their disagreements in an amicable and respectful manner.

Who could he possibly have meant instead of Rodney King?

Alternatively, maybe he wants to beat some "sense" into all of us.

Ha... in all fairness, don't Dean's comments qualify this video for the Lies channel? Maybe he's just saying it win an argument, but that still qualifies as a lie.

Of course Van Jones believes in 9/11 conspiracies, and so do most of his fans. He self-identifies as a far-left radical who sometimes condones extra-judicial violence (the Rodney King riots).