So the song is not about the riots at all. This guy just happened to go thieving a few days before the riots happened? I guess I'm not understanding the point. Why is the date three days before the riots related to the riots themselves? Or is this a song about a completely different riot unrelated to the Rodney King (though he's mentioned by name in the song) thing and its aftermath which happened three days later?
Im glad he was found innocent for the sake of America. There would of been Riots in the streets of CHicago, Riots in the streets of Miami, riots in the streets of Long Beach, Tusacloosa, Alabama.
Reading the rest of the lyrics, the song is obviously supposed to take place during the riots in question. If the song actually was called "April 26, 1992" at one point, that was obviously a mistake on the date of the riots. It's clear from the lyrics, he's not talking about something that happened three days before the riots.
Gonna let it burn, wanna let it burn, gonna let it burn wanna wanna let it burn-urn! fvcking, Detroit, riots in the streets of OH-HI-OH! Great band.
Yes, then they could have been sentenced to death as two of the three attackers of James Byrd were, or life imprisonment as the third was. Instead, since they only beat him to within an inch of his life and left him with permanent deformities, they were punished with probation and "misdemeanor assault". What was your point here?
My point was that it wasn't as bad as what happened to Byrd. Last I checked, Byrd was sitting around Lave Havasu, AZ.
No I don't think there would have been another riot if OJ happened to be found guilty. I don't think why OJ got off on a "make up call". OJ got off because the police fugged up the entire investigation. The case concerning OJ also had nothing to do with race although people certainly tried to make it out that way. The Rodney King riots had to do with the inhumame treatment, racially motivated and criminal actions of a group of white police officers in a city known for race related incidents involving law enforcement that were caught on video for the world to see and that city's inability to punish those officers accordingly as many of them were known bigots and racists.
EDIT: My point was that it wasn't as bad as what happened to Byrd. Last I checked, Byrd wasn't sitting around Lave Havasu, AZ.
Your point almost seems to be that as long as the victim isn't subjected to a horrific death, probation is always an acceptable punishment. That there are no matters of degree. It's either horrible murder and the death penalty (or life in prison) or crime short of horrible murder and probation. That seems to be the point you're making (even though I know that it isn't). Can I not decry Brian Deneke's murder since he was only run over by a car rather than dragged behind it? Was probation an acceptable punishment for his murderer since Brian had his head run over by a Cadillac rather than being dragged behind a pick-up, despite the intent to murder being evident in both crimes? I don't understand the idea that probation was perfectly okay because the guy lived. Are the only crimes worth jail time those in which the victim dies? I guess I'm just not understanding the points being made here (not like that's uncommon).
Byrd's killers got what they deserved. Three of Denny's attackers were told "We'll be watching you-- don't do it again." I agree dying is worse than being severely beaten and left with permanent disfigurement. But I don't see what that has to do with the fact that Denny's assailants got off nearly scot free. THere was justice under our legal system in 1 case, and a miscarriage of it in the other. What is ironic is that you're making Freak's original point without apparently realizing it. Several black men criminally assaulted a white man on a racial basis; there was no clamor for hate crimes legislation, and the justice system failed to punish the assailants adequately. In Byrd's case, there was a cry for hate crime legislation to be passed, even though 2 of the defendants were sentenced to the maximum penalty-- death-- possible under law and the third received life in prison. Which one of these cases should have generated public interest in hate crimes legislation? The one in which the defendants got off with probation and one misdemeanor assault conviction? Or the one where all three defendants were reasonably punished?
My response, albeit a typical knee jerk sarcastic one, was in response to TheFreak's implication that since white people never b**** about hate crimes, then why should minorities (even though there's a good chance that I misunderstood him). I think these assholes should've received way more than what they did, I never said any different. I just pointed out that the white cops who did the same thing to a black man were aquitted when someone said that the only reason they weren't given jail time was because they were black and did it to a white man. While I'm not glad that two of the three racists got the death penalty, I am happy that they were punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Actually OJ got off because he wasn't tried by a jury of his peers. You know, Major started a thread the other day about a man high on PCP biting off his 2 year-old son's finger. Upon reading that the incident had occurred in a trailer park, rockHEAD's response was "enough said" -- as if to say, it was a trailer park, what do you expect. That just happened to be the last response in the thread -- apparently nobody thought that remark was a big deal. What if I or someone else's only response to the LA Riots was "well, it happened in the ghetto, what do you expect?" Or, "a bunch of blacks looting in South Central, why are you surprised?" Would those comments have been received the same way as HEAD's? Just curious.
No you're not, you're just trying to start ****. Had the stereotypical members of a trailer park been lynched and been victims of racism their entire lives, then I'd have sympathy for them. OJ was found not guilty because the prosecution did a horrible job of presenting their case.
When you discredit the detective in charge of the case by proving that he used racial slurs, that makes the case about race, yes? I didn't say that they got off because they were black, I was making a comment on the sad state of the American justice system, whereby the give people a free pass for beating a man within an inch of his life for no reason other than the color of his skin. While I think Rodney King is a poor counterexample for you to use (he was not exactly an innocent, more a case of a stupid criminal combined with excessive force), I am equally appalled when I hear about a black man being beaten by whites because of his race.
So you're saying the comments wouldn't have been received the same way, because the 'stereotypical members of a trailer park' aren't black. Pretty much what I figured.
