Epistemology and Current Events (1992, Rodney King case)

[Bill Bucko 0]

According to news reports, Rodney King is dead. And I for one do not miss him one bit.

I never do miss criminal psychopaths who have no respect for human life, who endanger innocent people -- even when the criminal, as in this case, is quite a petty one, and we have far worse criminals to worry about--many of them prowling the halls of Congress and the White House.

The following is an essay I wrote in 1992, which was published in a local newsletter. The mindset that saw Rodney King as a victim is still prevalent today. So I thought I would share it.

EPISTEMOLOGY AND CURRENT EVENTS

by Bill Bucko

The perceptual versus the conceptual level:

The evening that four Los Angeles policemen charged in the beating of Rodney King were acquitted, the prosecutor in the case made a significant statement. He said that he had been opposed to the jurors studying the videotape of the beating in any detail; what he wanted was that jurors simply view the tape, then convict the defendants. By contrast, the defense attorneys said that an analysis of the tape was crucial in vindicating the police officers and winning their acquittal.

If a person is functioning on a concrete-bound, perceptual level, he might look at a tape of several men beating another man, ask no questions, and get the general impression that something wrong was going on. By contrast, a person who functioned on the conceptual level would not be content with a general impression. He would ask: exactly what is happening? and why? It is this conceptual approach that the defense attorneys, and the jurors, appear to have followed.

Who, amidst the chorus of knee-jerk “outrage” that followed the verdict, has bothered to analyze the defense attorneys’ arguments, and attempt to refute them? Certainly not the U.S. Attorney General, or Jesse Jackson, or the TV anchormen who frown so eloquently when speaking of the acquittal, or George Bush. Are these men who are functioning on a conceptual level? Or are they following the psycho-epistemology of a lynch mob? In matters of guilt or innocence, isn”t one’s first concern supposed to be the evidence?

Context holding:

In the media coverage of these events, do you see many signs of context-holding? Is it considered relevant, for instance, that Rodney King displayed a total indifference to human life, both black and white? Is it relevant that it was only by the merest chance King did not kill a dozen innocent people in his intoxicated, drugged, high-speed chase? Is it significant that the police officers could not tell, when King kept reaching for his pants, whether he was reaching for a concealed weapon? Is it significant that King had just thrown off four officers who were trying to hold him down, that he struck one of them, and that he showed himself strong enough to wrestle a gun away from them, if they got too close? Is it significant (as the jurors thought) that two black passengers in King’s car, who did not threaten the police, went unmolested? Is it significant that one of the officers now branded as a “racist” had on another occasion given CPR to a black man whose life was in danger? (Perhaps not, given our current legal system: the judge reportedly barred that fact from the court.)

If you are part of a mindless, bloodthirsty mob you will not consider questions like this. You will not be able to offer an intelligent opinion on whether the police officers were savage brutes attacking an innocent man—or whether they were heroes who risked their lives to subdue a raging maniac. If you are not a conceptual being, you will not see the innocent people whose lives may have been saved. All you will see is an oaf with lumps on his head. (And if the oaf attempts to pass himself off as a nice fellow who only wants us to get along with each other, you will not notice the similarity to Dr. Samuel Johnson’s description of a dog walking on its hind legs: “It is not done well; but one is surprised to see it done at all.”)

Evasion:

TV coverage of the ensuing riots several times showed people with contorted faces shouting at police, or bravely doing battle with a parking lot kiosk. But most of the coverage showed nothing but mobs of criminals gleefully murdering, looting, and burning. Occasionally the TV coverage did quote people at the scene as saying: the rioters don’t seem to be outraged; they seem to be enjoying themselves. They’re acting as though this were a field day. Yet headlines and news reports continue to call the riots an expression of “outrage.”

In one respect, the media did occasionally offer some much needed context: they mentioned that the majority of black people in Los Angeles did not riot, and were in fact opposed to the riot. It hurt the law-abiding black people of that city more than anyone else. But how did we reach a state of affairs in which thousands of criminals can have their way against millions of decent people? Who has disarmed the decent people, and sanctioned the criminals’ anti-conceptual mentality? Could it be the anchormen and politicians, who view the police as villains and Rodney King as a hero? Who has offered a voice of reason, in defense of decent men? Jesse Jackson??? George Bush??? (Or should I say: Cuffy Meigs and Wesley Mouch?)

In conclusion, I would like to point out that one need not form an opinion about criminal cases that find their way into the media. There are juries to decide them. In this case, there was a jury that heard and saw three months of evidence that their critics did not bother to consider. In my case, I certainly shared the vague general impression that the police officers were guilty—until a week or so ago, when testimony that King might have been on the drug PCP raised a doubt in my mind. The night of the verdict, when the defense attorneys gave their reasoned arguments—and not a single voice attempted to refute them—I concluded that the officers were probably innocent. If the jurors really took the rational, principled, conceptual approach they say they did, there is reason to be proud of them. (There is still some conflicting evidence, pointing in the opposite direction: for instance, conflicting testimony from experts on the use of force, and the fact that some police officers were shocked at the acquittal.) But as far as I can tell, the preponderance of evidence seems to indicate that justice was done. And it was apparently done by a band of twelve conceptual beings, who courageously refused to sacrifice the upholders of public order to a howling lynch mob.

Copyright © 1992 by Bill Bucko

[Jim A. 0]

When people across the country were rioting in "response" to the Rodney King situation, I was working the graveyard shift at a Seven-Eleven store in Sacramento. At about 1:30 AM on a Friday or Saturday night, as I recall, the parking lot in front of the store and adjacent establishments was full, and no newly arriving patrons could find a place to park. There was one vehicle with the driver still in it which had been parked in the store spaces for probably an hour. Many cars had had to skip Seven-Eleven and go somewhere else to buy what they needed because of patrons in the store who had parked in front, so this person who was parked without entering the store at all for a very long time wasn't helping. I took a moment to go outside and ask if the gentleman inside the vehicle (there was no one else with him) would like to come in to the store to buy something. He told me he didn't, and I asked him politely if he would please leave so that customers could pull up and enter the store. He then started to pull a club out from between the two front seats of the car, and said something like: "I don't think Rodney King should have been beaten up." My immediate thought was: "What the hell is the (epistemological) connection between the situation with Rodney King and leaving a parking space available for people who wish to shop at Seven-Eleven?" I didn't say this, however; you cannot reason with an animal (and this was someone who was becoming an animal by choice). He ultimately didn't do anything with that club, and I believe I called the police (and in such a way that he could see, inside the store, that I was doing that) and the "gentleman" eventually left.

Anyway, the "thinking" of some people is truly "amazing".

[Bill Bucko 0]

The brute in the car probably now holds a high-ranking position in the Gangster Regime in Washington (I will not call it a legal government).