LOS ANGELES, Nov. 29, 2007
Rodney King Shot, Wounded In California
Struck In Arm And Face By Shotgun Blast; Injuries Do Not Appear To Be Life Threatening
-
Rodney King is pictured in this Aug. 21, 1996 file photo. (AP (file))
-
Interactive Civil Rights In America A look back at the key people and events of the civil rights movement.
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.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From U.S.
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 50 CommentsPosted 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.
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.
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.
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.
And your children well also receive a letter from Santa Claus.
Merry Christmas From:
Poconocommunitynews.com
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???????
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/****.
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.
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.
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.
- 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 ?)
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 tcoleman12 at 11:01 PM : Nov 29, 2007
Yup.
This time they impounded all the camcorders before they beat him up.
- 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.
plus i don''t thing the guns then are represented of the guns today...
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.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 50 Comments