3 ms·

Whether or not he was innocent has nothing to do with whether he deserves sympathy for being beaten within an inch of his life. There is no excuse for that kind

Whether or not he was innocent has nothing to do with whether he deserves sympathy for being beaten within an inch of his life. There is no excuse for that kind of behavior from police.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
philwelch 16y ago
You can be against police brutality without sympathizing with drunk driving morons like Rodney King just like you can be against the death penalty without sympathizing with murderous madmen like Charles Manson, or against political censorship without sympathizing with the Ku Klux Klan. That's the essence of civil liberties--you don't have to be an object of sympathy or respect in order to have rights. You can be a common criminal, a mass murderer, or even a racist and you still have your rights, as well as plenty of people (you and me included) standing up for your rights even if on a personal level we wouldn't give you the time of day.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
abalashov 16y ago
This sounds like a semantic issue demanding clarity; does one "not sympathise" with Rodney King specifically, particularly on account of the behaviour that triggered his arrest, or as a victim of a police beating?
- 1337p337 16y ago
  It's, to me, a matter of justice versus the right to administer it. King certainly wasn't innocent and certainly deserved punishment, but democracy breaks down if punishment is ad-hoc. The LAPD has no right to beat down anyone who is submitting to arrest, or administer any sort of punishment to anyone except incarceration pending arraignment. "Rodney King was not innocent" is very different from "A jury has found Rodney King guilty by the same laws that apply to the rest of us, and may now be legally punished by the CDCR, in a manner proscribed by a judge." That I don't sympathize is subjective on my part, in other words.

3 ms·

Whether or not he was innocent has nothing to do with whether he deserves sympathy for being beaten within an inch of his life. There is no excuse for that kind

by rgrieselhuber 16y ago

Whether or not he was innocent has nothing to do with whether he deserves sympathy for being beaten within an inch of his life. There is no excuse for that kind of behavior from police.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
philwelch 16y ago
You can be against police brutality without sympathizing with drunk driving morons like Rodney King just like you can be against the death penalty without sympathizing with murderous madmen like Charles Manson, or against political censorship without sympathizing with the Ku Klux Klan. That's the essence of civil liberties--you don't have to be an object of sympathy or respect in order to have rights. You can be a common criminal, a mass murderer, or even a racist and you still have your rights, as well as plenty of people (you and me included) standing up for your rights even if on a personal level we wouldn't give you the time of day.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
abalashov 16y ago
This sounds like a semantic issue demanding clarity; does one "not sympathise" with Rodney King specifically, particularly on account of the behaviour that triggered his arrest, or as a victim of a police beating?
- 1337p337 16y ago
  It's, to me, a matter of justice versus the right to administer it. King certainly wasn't innocent and certainly deserved punishment, but democracy breaks down if punishment is ad-hoc. The LAPD has no right to beat down anyone who is submitting to arrest, or administer any sort of punishment to anyone except incarceration pending arraignment. "Rodney King was not innocent" is very different from "A jury has found Rodney King guilty by the same laws that apply to the rest of us, and may now be legally punished by the CDCR, in a manner proscribed by a judge." That I don't sympathize is subjective on my part, in other words.