I have only what you said to go on regarding Rodney King being a textbook case of anything regarding baton use. I can't say I ever saw the entire video for sure, but what I can say is that from what I remember, I don't think that during the protracted batonning of King, two or three strapping cops could not have managed to get his damned hands behind his back and into cuffs. What I mean to say is that I think at some point before the beating ceased, he was already in a condition where he could have been cuffed.
There are certain segments of the population that will be satisfied ONLY when a court decides exactly as they were wanting it to decide even before the first day of a trial. They are willing to accept a jury's verdict -- as long as it's "the cops are guilty." Not so willing, they are, to accept a verdict contrary to what they wanted found. That is a form of abuse of the courts, and of trust in the system. After the fact, it became clear that the black community in L.A. was going to be satisfied ONLY if the cops who beat King were convicted. One cannot say that one trusts that a guilty verdict is valid, if one could ever be shown to believe that a not guilty verdict is valid. It's like saying that somehow you know before a trial even starts what the verdict should be, and the court is simply there to rubber-stamp YOUR decision of guilty.
Anyway, I don't think that we can be so sure that if King had been TASERed instead of batonned, that there would not have been riots after the cops' acquittal.
And look at what that engendered, anyway: now any time they fail to convict someone of the crime with which they are charged, they can try them AGAIN (a precedent has been set) on "CIVIL RIGHTS" charges!
That's a travesty of justice if ever there was one. It's like the prosecutor calling for a "do-over" to which they are NOT entitled.
-blackmind
There are certain segments of the population that will be satisfied ONLY when a court decides exactly as they were wanting it to decide even before the first day of a trial. They are willing to accept a jury's verdict -- as long as it's "the cops are guilty." Not so willing, they are, to accept a verdict contrary to what they wanted found. That is a form of abuse of the courts, and of trust in the system. After the fact, it became clear that the black community in L.A. was going to be satisfied ONLY if the cops who beat King were convicted. One cannot say that one trusts that a guilty verdict is valid, if one could ever be shown to believe that a not guilty verdict is valid. It's like saying that somehow you know before a trial even starts what the verdict should be, and the court is simply there to rubber-stamp YOUR decision of guilty.
Anyway, I don't think that we can be so sure that if King had been TASERed instead of batonned, that there would not have been riots after the cops' acquittal.
And look at what that engendered, anyway: now any time they fail to convict someone of the crime with which they are charged, they can try them AGAIN (a precedent has been set) on "CIVIL RIGHTS" charges!
That's a travesty of justice if ever there was one. It's like the prosecutor calling for a "do-over" to which they are NOT entitled.-blackmind
My grandmother was from Mississippi and she knew better.