Reel Time / Real Justice examines the Rodney King case and the resulting LA riots through a lens of racial struggle. It seeks to question if objectivity was really found when the case was first addressed. The article suggests not, and I would agree. The video depicts a man, surrounded by officers, getting beaten and kicked long after he was knocked down and restrainable. By definition, that’s excessive force. The video was dissected and taken out of context, and the jury disagreed. This is where the article’s premise, for me, started to fall apart. The jury may have come to the wrong conclusion, but I disagree with the article’s reason why. Disaggregation in the courtroom is the idea; the Rodney King case, in court, is a question of what happened in that instance, not what happens overall. Attempting to rule according to popular opinion is half the reason that OJ Simpson was acquitted, because no one wanted LA to burn again. And attempting to justify the ensuing riots as a community’s attempt to make ‘peace’ costly is invalid: it’s vengeance, and not even vengeance on the guilty parties. I understand it’s a counter-narrative, but it’s too far gone to be viable.

Question: What’s your take on the article? Do you agree with the lens? How would you interpret the Rodney King case?