Rodney King Shot, Wounded In California

Struck In Arm And Face By Shotgun Blast; Injuries Do Not Appear To Be Life Threatening

(AP)  Rodney King, whose videotaped police beating in 1991 led to deadly rioting when the officers involved were acquitted, was shot on a street corner, but his wounds were not life-threatening, police said.

King, 42, was shot two or three times from a distance by birdshot fired from a shotgun. He then bicycled about 1½ miles back to his home in neighboring Rialto and called police. King was hit in the face, arms, back and torso, police said.

Authorities said when they arrived at the home, King and others appeared drunk and were largely uncooperative in providing information about the shooting.

King was taken to a hospital. His condition on Thursday was not immediately known.

The shooting may have involved a domestic dispute, San Bernardino police Lieutenant Scott Paterson said.

King, who is black, was videotaped being beaten by white Los Angeles police officers after he was stopped for speeding in 1991. Four officers were acquitted of most criminal charges in 1992, triggering rioting in Los Angeles and neighboring cities that left 55 people dead and caused $1 billion in property damage.

King sued the city over the beating and obtained a $3.8 million settlement.

However, he continued to have run-ins with the law. In 2004, he was ordered to spend 120 days in jail and ordered into treatment after pleading guilty to driving under the influence of the drug PCP after he lost control of his SUV in 2003 and slammed into a power pole in Rialto.

Rialto and San Bernardino are about 55 miles east of Los Angeles.

[one_american]

"Why can''t we all just get along?"

Yeah, right...Rodney.

[cheddarboy82]

I like how in 92, one black is beaten and the solution is to riot and get 55 people killed ! this is really news worthy ?

[three-o-six]

Sorry One American -- it is not human nature to "get along"

[ladyephesus1]

I heard that One_American! geezzz

[tburzio]

The economy must really be getting bad if the random shooters in San Bernardino are resorting to pellet guns! Is there a government program to help underprivileged random shooters buy ammunition?

[briannorwood]

Just goes to show... you can take the boy out of the hood, but you can''t take the hood out of the boy!

[aerodog]

Rodney''s just not ''getting along'' with folks these days.

[gunownerdan]

I will never forget how in 1992 the police actually refused to help shop owners who were stuck in their businesses and surrounded by angry mobs of homicidal maniacs.
Luckily one of those Korean store owners had a gun shop, and they successfully used semi-automatic "assault weapons" to protect themselves and save their businesses from being destroyed by hundreds of violent looters.
Criminals will always prefer unarmed victims!

[a8151947]

Lets get off the I need a gun. You , no body needs a gun. Go stand on a box some where else. We don''t need it here.

[gayprophet]

You are right, A8151947. Let''s get to the root of it all. Guns aren''t violent, people are. If we outlaw people then there will be no more gun violence. Boy are you quick on the draw.

[hypnotoad72]

Was King doped up or drunk at the time?

In 1992, did anybody feel bothered to ask what happened immediately before the papparazzi/pepperoni/whatever whipped out his tiny camcorder? (if nothing else, it''s easy to omit elements that would distort an otherwise accurate case. Video alone isn''t always the whole story.)

And, yes, thanks to the aftermath of the King debacle, hell broke loose. No wonder nobody wants to touch the guy. (I''m amazed OJ got in the picture again. Maybe he finally found a mirror. Oops, sorry, I mean he finally found the real killers. Golf clubs must have mirrors in their bathrooms...)

[shanev137]

Someone check Ticking ***''s shotgun.

[olebd]

And how many cops lost their jobs because of him? How many times has he been arrested since getting beaten? How many drug related charges are on him now? Still think he wasn''t guilty of being drugged out of his mind and resisting arrest that day? And he won all that money in the settlement. It sure didn''t help to turn his life around.

[shanev137]

oh that''s right, you can''t say D I C K on here.

[jetranger7]

RODNEY KING = MORON - Stupidity - IGNORANCE - DEADBEAT - LOWLIFE - DEGENERATE - FOOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[runningralph]

tburzio,
Shotguns and pellet guns are different types of weapons. A pellet gun is an air operated gun which may be pumped up enough to puncture human tissue with one small caliber pellet..if all the various variables are right. A shotgun has a large shell backed by high powered gun powder. If the various variables are right it could blow a human to pieces.
But what about this Rodney King? This guy has the constitution of a bull elephant. All those cops banging him on the head and he''s still coming up swinging! Then he smiles and says why can''t we get along! He gets hit by a shotgun blast and he bicycles home! 90% of us would have been dead a long time ago. I know I would.

[hypnotoad72]

RODNEY KING = MORON - Stupidity - IGNORANCE - DEADBEAT - LOWLIFE - DEGENERATE - FOOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by JetRanger7
--------------

Nobody''s perfect...

[keithle1]

Thought this idiot was dead. Black men have a knack of getting shot. Why is that?

[kennergirl]

I guess he''s not allowed to drive anymore given his past history. I guess they''ll be no high speed chases with Rodney on his Schwinn. lol

[magoo2u1]

I''m Shocked. Shocked I tell you!!

[closethippy1]

But what about this Rodney King? This guy has the constitution of a bull elephant. All those cops banging him on the head and he''''s still coming up swinging! Then he smiles and says why can''''t we get along! He gets hit by a shotgun blast and he bicycles home! 90% of us would have been dead a long time ago. I know I would.
Posted by runningralph

That''s why black guys always get the girls.

[jumkey]

Yeah, King is a ne''er-do-well.

So all African-Americans deserve to be beaten in the streets and all cops are absolved when they beat innocent people.

Welcome to racist, stupid America.

[denn034]

Glad to see the injuries aren''t life threatening.

[downtowner97]

That''s a riot!

[ssm9451]

With all that money, you''d think he would disappear.

[antinaacp]

after the riots in los angelas millions of whites armed themselves /

[michaelt302]

16 years ago he was a black, drunk, drug-using, violent loser who hung out with the wrong crowd. Today in 2007 he is still a black, drunk, drug-using, violent loser who hangs out with the wrong crowd. Gee, what a fu*cking surprise!

[michaelt302]

Keithle1, your question is precious, just PRECIOUS. You asked "Black men have a knack of getting shot. Why is that?".
Answer: It''s because black men have a knack for shooting people, that''s why. It''s just that CBS and your liberal media don''t really want to TALK about that fact. Go here and see a writer---a black writer---talk about it.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7499442?MSNHPHCP&GT1=10637

[bhappy2-2]

Lets get off the I need a gun. You , no body needs a gun. Go stand on a box some where else. We don''''t need it here.

Posted by A8151947

While I support your right to disagree with me please remember; My second amendment right to keep and bear arms protects your first amendment right to tell me I don''t need one.

With that said, I will continue to keep and bear arms. What I find so funny is the gun banners (who don''t own guns) want to take my guns. How do they plan to do that, without guns?

[toolmangler-2009]

Go here and see a writer---a black writer---talk about it.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/
7499442?MSNHPHCP 1=10637

Posted by MichaelT302 at 09:04 PM : Nov 29, 2007



Best article I have read in a long time, Also 100% right on.

[toolmangler-2009]

Go here and see a writer---a black writer---talk about it.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/
7499442?MSNHPHCP 1=10637

Posted by MichaelT302 at 09:04 PM : Nov 29, 2007



Best article I have read in a long time, Also 100% right on.

[pared1]

Must be tough being famous for being beaten up, being arrested and now being shot. Can I have your autograph Rod?

[jester188]

bhappy2-2 ... you are talking about something that was written hundreds of years ago... while the ideal stay the same the principle changes... you are talking about a time when the people represented the military against the british... today there is a military to guard against attacks... the rights of yestarday should not be taken at the base word but analyzed on a much greater standard... does the second right reallyh indicate individuals to carry fire arms... or does it refer to the will of the people or representation...

plus i don''t thing the guns then are represented of the guns today...

[mcv57]

Mr. King never said he was a saint. Now we know what a "rich" junkie and pip does with his money and time. Still, the law enforcement establishment knows better to practice racism and violence on U.S. citizens.

[iceman_1960]

"Just goes to show... you can take the boy out of the hood, but you can''''t take the hood out of the boy!"
- Posted by briannorwood at 04:02 PM : Nov 29, 2007

Eh ? Rodney King was the shooting victim, not the shooter.

The shooter may have been a White Presbyterian gang member.

[tcoleman12]

Hang on here...King CALLED police himself this time? Then he and his friends were uncooperative when they arrived? Is he needing more money these days?

[iceman_1960]

"Hang on here...King CALLED police himself this time?"
- Posted by tcoleman12 at 11:01 PM : Nov 29, 2007

Yup.

This time they impounded all the camcorders before they beat him up.

[myidoncbs]

Some total re/**** said, "My second amendment right to keep and bear arms protects your first amendment right to tell me I don''t need one."

No, re/****, you got it ALL WRONG! Your "second amendment right" protects the states'' rights to form "well-regulated militias", not your individual "right" to have any weapon you like! However, if we assume you are correct about this "right" (even though you are not), you STILL got it all wrong! Your ability to have a gun DOES NOT, IN ANY WAY protect anyone''s first amendment right to free speech. You can''t do ANYTHING to protect free speech other than (1) make good use of it, and (2) vote for politicians who understand and respect your right to free speech. (And that is definitely NOT what GW Bush and the neocons have done.)

[drivelphobe]

King is and always has been a thug. He deserved everything the cops did to him when he was beaten. The whole trial was joke, like OJ''s. The city of Los Angeles had to pay out that money and every black in the city rejoiced. It was nothing but a racial scam. Gosh, and all he wanted was to just "get along." Where''d the $3.8 million go??

[iceman_1960]

"No, re/****, you got it ALL WRONG! Your "second amendment right" protects the states" rights to form "well-regulated militias", not your individual "right" to have any weapon you like!"
- Posted by MyIDonCBS at 11:29 PM : Nov 29, 2007

That is not exactly what the Second Amendment says.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In other words, (in those days) a Militia could not be raised quickly if the people themselves were not familiar with the keeping and bearing of muskets.

The Amendment could simply have said "only well-regulated Militias can keep and bear Arms" if that was the intended meaning.



(By the way, is the common word *** (re/****) really banned by the silly software ?)

[myidoncbs]

"Criminals will always prefer unarmed victims!" - gunSELLERdan

Gun dealers will always prefer a terrified and parnoid population. It drive sales through the roof! -- me

Dan doesn''t give a damm about ANYBODY protecting themselves. The fact is, if you own a gun, you are more likely to die from a gunshot than if you don''t own a gun. Sure, about 1 in a million times you might actually use a gun to save yourself. The problem is, the odds of being killed by that very gun are MUCH higher than 1 in a million. But Dan wants you to believe that you''ll "protect yourself" by waving the gun around, without shooting anybody. Ask yourself this: If a would-be assailant is scared off by seeing you wave your gun around, how serious of a threat was that assailant, REALLY? Don''t most criminals have their OWN guns? Don''t they arrive on the scene with the gun loaded, aimed, and ready to fire? Unless you are awake 24x7x365, and safely hiding behind a gun turret, with your gun loaded and pointed, what are the odds that YOU will get the drop on THEM? It just doesn''t happen like that!

More guns is NOT the solution to ANYTHING. More guns means more people will die, PERIOD.

[iceman_1960]

gunownerdan,

The more guns held in private hands in any modern society, the greater the level of criminal violence in that society.

There is no nation on earth, from Japan to Iraq to the USA, that has widespread private gun ownership and also civil peace and harmony.

[myidoncbs]

drivelphobe says, "He [Rodney King] deserved everything the cops did to him when he was beaten."

No human being deserves to be surrounded by a bunch of blood-thirsty cops, and kicked and severely beaten! Not even if he is a "thug", as you described him. You are a sick, inhuman being to think such atrocities are "deserved".

Futhermore, re/****, wherever the supposed $3.8 million dollars went is NO concern of yours, and it has absolutely no bearing on his honest attempt to quell the violence in LA when he said, "Why can''t we all just get along?" Whatever else he may have done in his life, that was a good moment. He deserves credit for trying to calm things down.

[iceman_1960]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms [Muskets], shall not be infringed." - Second Amendment

I"ve never handled a Musket, but it was certainly a comparatively primitive weapon and required a great deal of experience and practice to use effectively, like a crossbow or a sword.

Not like modern firearms that young criminals seemingly can become familiar with quickly.

The Second Amendment seems to be stating that the need for well-regulated Militias, is behind the Right of private persons to keep and bear these weapons so as to use them in military service without a long period of training.

That is my take on this. But I may just be another re/****.

[slim1h2o]

16 years ago he was a black, drunk, drug-using, violent loser who hung out with the wrong crowd. Today in 2007 he is still a black, drunk, drug-using, violent loser who hangs out with the wrong crowd. Gee, what a fu*cking surprise!

Posted by MichaelT302 at 09:00 PM : Nov 29, 2007

Thanks,,,You just answered my question, before I asked it.

Which is,,Why does this knucklehead keep showing up in national headlines???????

[santa2007-2009]

www.poconocommunitynews.com is offering a free telephone call from Santa Claus, or if you like, you can have your children call Santa Claus at no cost at all, 100% free, that easy, that fast!
And your children well also receive a letter from Santa Claus.

Merry Christmas From:
Poconocommunitynews.com

[kailumego1]

Iceman_1960,

Re: "the right to bear arms"

Thank you, for that profound explanation, when I''ve read the 2th Amendment repeatedly that''s the conclusion I''d drawn, a well armed militia.

[kailumego1]

For all the white folks that are so quick to bring his race into the equation as symptomatic of his repeated predicaments, you need to watch CourtTv "Inside the Jail", I watched, as one after the other, white males and females, all in a drunken tirade, were thrown into a cell, for disorderly conduct.

Some high on alcohol, alcohol and meth, or other narcotic substances, so stop with the racial pandering, some white folks are drunken low-life losers as well.

[bhappy2-2]

bhappy2-2 ... you are talking about something that was written hundreds of years ago... the rights of yestarday should not be taken at the base word but analyzed on a much greater standard... does the second right reallyh indicate individuals to carry fire arms... or does it refer to the will of the people or representation...

plus i don''''t thing the guns then are represented of the guns today...

Posted by jester188

So, jester, does that mean the other amendments, since they are so old, should be disregarded as well? Or is it only those YOU don''t approve of that should be disregarded? After all, the first amendment (do you know what IT is about?) could be viewed by some as meaning the newspapers OF THAT ERA and the people OF THAT ERA needed the right of free speech to tell others about the perils of being governed by a king from across the ocean. Besides, the words of today are so advanced compared to what was available then, they didn''t even have words like COMPUTER, INTERNET, BLOG and so many others. Shouldn''t this whole freedom of speech thing be eliminated as an amendment to our constitution since SO MUCH HAS CHANGED SINCE IT WAS WRITTEN?
If you don''t support ridding ourselves of ALL amendments DON''T TELL ME WHAT ANY OF THEM MEAN. As I said, my second amendment protected firearm defends your first amendment right to tell me I don''t need one. When my second amendment rights disappear your first, third, fourth, fifth and right on down the line will not be far from falling as well.

[bhappy2-2]

No, re/****, you got it ALL WRONG! Your "second amendment right" protects the states'''' rights to form "well-regulated militias", not your individual "right" to have any weapon you like! However, if we assume you are correct about this "right" (even though you are not), you STILL got it all wrong! Your ability to have a gun DOES NOT, IN ANY WAY protect anyone''''s first amendment right to free speech. You can''''t do ANYTHING to protect free speech other than (1) make good use of it, and (2) vote for politicians who understand and respect your right to free speech. (And that is definitely NOT what GW Bush and the neocons have done.)

Posted by MyIDonCBS

HEY JASSACK! When the second amendment falls YOUR first amendment won''t be far behind it! As long as the people are armed we have some small chance to remain free. When that right is taken away it will be to allow the others to be taken without resistance. While I may not be able to prevent the government from taking my rights I WILL be able to resist for a little while. Even if I fail at least I will die trying. NOT sucking air through @SS like you.