Chapters 15-18

The author makes a point to display King as a completely reformed man from what we had seen of him previously. During the Simi Valley trial, Cannon presents the prosecution as extremely nervous about King's testimony. He was shown to be easily confused and self-contradicting, a trait that isn't valuable to a witness that has to stand up to tough cross-examination.  The “new” King is attributed all of the traits of the perfect parenthetical victim of brutish police force. Cannon describes him as “earnest… decent, friendly, vulnerable, and intellectually limited” and having a “ring of truth” to a “sympathetic jury.” (P 428)

Although Cannon does not mention this explicitly, King's new-found confidence is most likely attributed to the publicity he experienced in the wake of all the events preceding the second trial. “Their eyes were riveted on King as he strode commandingly into the courtroom.” (P 423) He was at the very center of a media frenzy, and had to gain some semblance of proper composure during this time. The effect is clearly portrayed when King first enters the court.

Cannon also seems to be playing on the notion, much as he did in describing the verdicts of the first trial, that it was a combination of external factors and luck that lead to the decision reached. During the first trial, Cannon painstakingly re-enacts the case to show where the defense got lucky breaks, and delves into the anatomy of the jury in order to point to the fact that it was highly biased. While that perspective is entirely believable for the first trial, I find it difficult to not simply attribute the outcome of the second trial to a true act of justice. Of course every decision is effected by outside influences, a fact that the US Justice system tries to negate by sheltering jurors from the world around them. But in the wake of the LA riots of 1992, no new media coverage was needed to influence the jurors.

Cannon points out in Chapter 17 (called The Thirteenth Juror) that fear played a huge role in the decision making process for those deciding the officer's legal fate. He attempts to show how it was nearly impossible for any juror to not convict the police, as fear of a violent rebuttal by the slums of South Central still lingered heavily in the backs of their minds only a year later. He cites jurors that missed their families, worried about their homes, and were fearful of the safety of their children if the officers were not convicted. He alludes that the jury did not reach a decision based on their personal conclusions from the facts stated, but rather more as a representative of the "collective village" referred to in the defense's closing remarks.
The defense comments in its closing arguments that King was not allowed the benefit of a jury when he was pulled over, and his punishment was dealt out to him not through the legal process but by a thug-group of cops with metal batons. On the flipside, however, one can see that during the second trial the police were not afforded the personal conclusions of the jury that is the cornerstone of American justice. Rather, their trial was conducted on a 24-hour news cycle of CNN, where the whole world witnessed the consequences of their inadequacies. Conclusive judgment had been made long before the second trial began, and the citizens of the United States were no longer interested in the real events that occured when King was beaten. Instead, they were more concerned with the consequences of each verdict, and decided who was guilty for a crime by placing the ends before the means.

Rodney King According to the NYT

A speeding black motorist was pulled over and senselessly beaten by an entourage of three officers while twelve other officers spectated. The event was taped in full by a resident awakened by the disturbance outside his window, and has been widely circulated amongst news media. The publicity surrounding the beating has caused calls by many public officials for Chief of Los Angelos Police Daryl Gates to resign from his long-held post. These indignant calls have been answered in only by curt refusal by the Chief.

The victim of the beating, Rodney “Glen” King, sustained innumerable injuries to his entire body from the beating, in which the police tased King twice, and beat him over 50 times with metal batons. He now walks with a cane, and his mental stability is in question. Weeks after the incident, police pulled King over again for illegally tinted windows and found him in the company of a transvestite prostitute. In a separate incident, King notified authorities that he believed two undercover officers were about to kill him. Furthermore, King’s testimony regarding the event has been largely contradictory, both to himself and to the video record.

A study commissioned by the city of Los Angelos has concluded that race was a determining factor in the incident. The study cites that members of the LAPD “repetitively use excessive force against the public and persistently ignore the written guidelines of the department regarding force.” The report spells further condemnation for Chief Gates, who has greeted it by calling it old news.

The results of the ongoing trial seem inevitable in face of irrefutable evidence of the video and the harsh indictment of the report. 

Official Negligence

Luo Cannon, in an attempt to provide historical context for the Rodney King event, points to a study performed in the 1980’s regarding the conditions of South Central Los Angelos. The report details the squalid conditions of the ghetto, its heavy racial and class tensions, and its dim economic future in contrast to the booming downtown. He cites the report as an ominous warning gone completely unheeded, as if the LA riots of 1992 were a simple matter of prediction and prevention.

 In hindsight, one can see that the dismal conditions in South Central created the perfect storm for chaos, a blend of social angst, extreme poverty, and rules established by gangsters rather than government. Cannon alludes to the notion that, had there been some sort of official intervention to help South Central residents, no great tragedy would have occurred to begin with. He points to the blundering economic mistakes made by the California administration, citing the fact that nearly 25% of employers planned to move their business’ outside the state due to its distressing regulatory requirements.

Yet Cannon offers no clear path for South Central, other than untangling the jungle of bureaucracy that is California’s government to ease job flight. The plight of poverty plays a leading role in the making of the riots, but so does a history of injustice for the underprivileged. In Chapter 5, he discusses the common sentiment among South Central residents that fair trials were often not afforded to members of the lower class due to racial stigma, yet addresses no racial issues in his opening chapter. It almost alludes to the idea that racial tension is a fantasy invented by the impoverished to explain their difficult life, and justify their opposition to police forces that hinder their “lifestyles.” For the residents of South Central, however, racial tension is very real, as can be clearly seen in the violent reaction to what they viewed as a racist decision to acquit the white authorities involved with Rodney King.

Knowing little about the series of events that led to his capture, I was surprised by the extensive steps the officers took during the arrest to avoid the beating. Cannon illustrates the confusion felt by the arresting officers in a simple and elegant fashion. By allowing the reader to see every perspective from different eyes, the chaos of perceptions is made clear. Cannon writes of the officers with deference and makes an effort to depict the actions in connection with their emotional stimulants, muddled by the din and the adrenaline. His painstakingly detailed account of what went through each party’s mind during the incident reveals an sensation we are all familiar with; that of panic. In a sense, the admission that the men in question are emotional creatures removes their dehumanizing uniforms and the social stigma of their position, allowing them to be judged in a clearer light than that cast by the New York Times or CNN.

At the same time, it becomes difficult to feel empathy for the police when the story is detailed from the opposite perspective. King was not drunk, not “dusted” as the cops believed, and Cannon portrays him not as a cornered dog but scared and confused. Although the officers were fueled by the passion of the moment, for the majority of the 81-second beating they were hitting a limp, unconscious body.

The ACLUs response to the King incident struck me. They produced a publicity campaign saying, “Who do you call when the gang wears blue uniforms?” Indeed, when asked why he didn’t call the police when he was video taping the beating of King, Holiday responds, “They were there,” (page 50). The course of action you take when you are being oppressed by the people who are supposed to protect you is confusing. No doubt, some of the police bystanders at the scene felt the same way, with a respected authority figure directing the beating, what is there to do but stand aghast? 

New York Times’ Rodney King Coverage

The articles from the New York Times flow much like any long term interest news story would during Rodney King’s trial. In the first report chronicling the incident, race is not specifically mentioned until the last 2 paragraphs, as if it were an afterthought. King’s defense attorney is said to have not even brought up the issue of race during the trail. The whole cast seem to be oblivious to the magnitude of the future implications of the court proceedings.

When the verdict is reached by the Jurors, the tone of the articles change. The reader can sense a certain disbelief in the reporter’s words. In all their analysis and predictions about the case, this fit into none of them, and their words turn from half-interest to flabbergast. The change in tone is appropriate, of course, because the reporters are now reporting on a situation more akin to a popular uprising then a court story. As verbal arguments dissolve into burning storefronts, there is a palpable fear in the writing, “The City of Angels endured another siege of violence today with an acrid smell of smoke in its nostrils and a cold stone of fear heavy on its heart.” (NYT, May 1, 1992, RIOTS IN LOS ANGELES: The Scene; Smell of Fear in Los Angeles)

The psychology of 81 seconds of adrenaline fueled hatred seems to spread into a massive anarchic chaos, a dark circus crawling from the rift in society left by racism and socio-economic unbalance. In a flash, the accepted racial roles become comically reversed, and for a while those who are used to the security ensured by their social status now see it as a life threatening liability.

In contrast, the bedlam has a strange unifying effect for Rodney King supporters. What the New York Times describes as a frenzy of looting and a “Marathon of Stealing,” is dubbed by one participant as a statement of unity. “This is about the black community coming together.” (NYT, May 1, 1992, The Sacking of a Neighborhood: An Orgy of Looting, a Carnival of Chaos)

The universal violent outbreak that occurred after the verdict was clearly a deep seeded anger welling from years of institutionalized police harassment, but many similar injustices have occurred to the black community in the past without this widespread backlash. Perhaps it was the media’s viral captivation with the shocking viciousness portrayed in the amateur footage of the attack, and its quick saturation through modern mediums into households across LA.

It may have also been that King happened to have the unfortunate coincidence of a last name with the great civic leader Martin Luther King, Jr. Several references are made to him as the “second King,” yet Rodney displays no signs of wanting to lead social change in LA. He is quoted saying “And just, I love, I'm neutral, I love every, I love people of color. I'm not like they're picking me out to be.” (NYT, May 2, 1992, Rodney King Speaks Out: 'Can We All Get Along?') He is depicted as stuttering, easily confused, and gullible. He does not yield the power to inspire people to work peacefully together for social justice like the “other King” before him. This unfortunate weakness does not incite, but certainly precipitates, the violence of the riots.