Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room "Can't we just all get along?"

From the HeraldTribune:

King recovering after slamming his vehicle into house

The Associated Press

Rodney King, whose videotaped beating led to the 1992 riots in Los Angeles, remains in a hospital after he lost control of his car and crashed into a house over the weekend, police said.

King, 39, of Rialto was spotted Sunday by a Rialto police officer, who said King was weaving through traffic in his 2003 Ford Expedition and traveling about 100 mph when he slammed into a utility pole, a chain-link fence and then the home, police said. No one in the home was injured.

King broke his pelvis in the accident and was taken to Arrowhead Regional Medical Center in Colton where he was listed in fair condition Monday afternoon, hospital spokesman Jorge Valencia said.

Police said they suspect that King was intoxicated at the time of the accident, and a blood sample was drawn to determine his blood-alcohol level. Test results have not yet been released.

King was not arrested, but a report detailing the crash circumstances will be submitted to the district attorney's office, Rialto police Lt. Kathy Thompson said.

King, who is black, was chased by police through the San Fernando Valley in 1991 and was captured on videotape being beaten by four white officers, who were later acquitted. Riots broke out that lasted four days and left 55 dead and more than 2,000 injured. The mayhem caused $1 billion in property damage.

King later received a $3.8 million settlement from the city of Los Angeles in 1994.

He was convicted of spouse abuse in 1999 in San Bernardino County and received 90 days in jail and four years on probation. Claremont police arrested King for being under the influence of PCP in August 2001, and a month later, Pomona police arrested him for being under the influence of PCP and indecent exposure after visitors at Ganesha Park complained about a man jumping on an ice chest.

King pleaded no contest to three counts of being under the influence of PCP and a count of indecent exposure in October 2001. A judge gave King a year in a drug treatment center even though a prosecutor argued King should spend a year in county jail.

Last modified: April 15. 2003 5:10AM

And you posted this for what purpose?

Oh, there are many points to this latest episode concerning Mr. King.

Leftists are quite bad about forgetting their poster children after the circus leaves town.

I just thought I'd catch you up on the latest!

Funny, I haven't seen "leftists" posting anything about the Prez' nieces lately. Have I missed something? Or are you Stalinoids even more forgetful than that? (shall we start some posts about the the retired U.S. military people who ran the flight schools and trained the Al-Qaeda folks who crashed into the twin towers? Or shall we stay with Timothy McVeigh and his "friends"?) :p

Did I miss something, or did Jeb's daughter endanger the motorists, and homeowners of Tallahasee recently?

Actually, it seems like you've missed quite a lot. Welcome back!

Com'on people now
Smile on your brothers
Gotta love one another
Right now Right Now
RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!

OK Shant, this ought to really make your day( ):

Current "buzz" in Republican camps is "Bush in 2008!"

No, not GWB, but Jeb.

Ready for a three-peat? :p

Hmmm...

Maybe I should start a post about the Iran-Contra scandal. Sometimes the right like to forget about things. In fact, they will even hold up one of the convicted felons of that sordid affair (who got off on one of those nasty technicalities the ACLU has forced on us) as a hero and they give him his own radio talk show.

I would be glad to debate you on the life of Oliver North vs that of Rodney King.

Or, let's reach back, and pull convicted felon, J. Gordon Liddy into this fray.

Do you really want to go there?

No, because I would argue that subverting the constitution in the name of the President is a major crime and both should still be in prison. I would also argue that Rodney King is a pathetic little habitual petty criminal who is of little consequence to the safety of this society.

You would see it the other way.

I suppose that if it could be said that Oliver North escaped justice on a technicality it could just as easily be said that Bill Clinton escaped conviction for crimes against the state and subverting the Constitution, similarly, on a technicality. Two can play at this game.

I agree, it's ridiculous to compare Oliver North to Rodney King. How about comparing two, adulturous, politicians? Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich.

Any takers?

Derick

OK Derick, I'll wade off into that one, and I'll add one more name - Bob Livingston.

In the case of Clinton, whos' offense was much more serious than either of Gingrich's , or Livingston's, he refused to abbrogate power, in spite of his shame.

Whether completely voluntary, or not, at least the two Republicans had the decency to resign.

And that perhaps is the difference, Clinton felt no shame.

Sure, Bill Clinton committed perjury and encouraged others to do so. Newt Gingrich did not. I never was especially worked up about their marital problems.

Jolly and JBryan, you make valid points. But, the fact is that Gingrich is highly revered by the right while Clinton is still taking a beating for it. Of course, Clinton has commited multiple sins and it's hard to isolate adultury from all the others.

On the other hand, Mr. Family values himself, the epitome of hypocracy, is thought of as some kind of god by the right.

You have to admit, when it comes to adultury, both have earned their stripes. It just goes to prove that both liberals and conservatives have selective memories.

Derick

Come on Derick, Bill Clinton is revered by the left and Newt Gingrich reviled (by the left). The only difference is that, while Bill Clinton committed acts that were actually crimes before the State, Newt Gingrich did not.

JBryan, you are right, of course. But is it any worse for someone to commit a crime against the state, originating from the sin of adultury, than it is for someone to get on his high-horse about family values and then discovered to be an adulturer?

When you look at both individuals from purely a right/wrong, good/bad perspective, on the issue of adultury alone, both rank pretty low in my opinion.

Derick

Ahem, since I live in the greater metropolitan area where Mr King does a lot of his reckless driving I happen to think my saftey is of much greater consequence than you seem to.

You'd think he could have spent some of that money on a driver for when he wants to binge! :p

This is true and was never the point of my disagreement. However, I try to confine my areas of condemnation to those which may actually impinge on my life. Whether or not Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich are adulterers is a matter that lies between them, their wives, and the almighty. When these acts become the focus of legal action and they comport themselves in a manner inconsistent with lawful behavior, that is the point at which I become the most concerned as to their fitness for office.

That is not to say that I am totally unconcerned with adultery as it pertains to fitness for office. After all, I figure if a man would lie to his wife he certainly would have no qualms about lying to me. However, that is something that would inform my judgment as to his veracity and not be a deciding factor, for me, with regard to his fitness for office. In other words, I am not shocked or surprised when politicians may lie to me but I expect them to, at the very least, obey the law.