The Ending of Official Negligence
The following post will look at chapters fifteen through eighteen in Official Negligence.
In Chapter 15, Lou Cannon examines the second trial regarding Rodney King and the brutal police beatings. This event clearly served as a direct reaction to the acquittals, but the trials were defined as examining whether or not King’s civil rights had been violated. The official government document referenced at the beginning of the chapter speaks to the ever-present role of the media in both the law and society. So much of the subsequent trial stemmed from one document, just as so much of the first one was a reaction to a videotape. Cannon also examines the uncertainty and lack of consistency in the law. In the trial that acquitted the LAPD officers, the outcome was shocking. But due to what happened, people assumed the officers would be acquitted again. Yet the second case operated quite differently and played out in a completely different fashion. An explicit reality throughout this book is the role of fear in everyone’s ability to speak about events and react appropriately. This helps shape how the reader understands the nature of both the crimes and Los Angeles at the time. After laying out the trial, Cannon goes to discuss the formation of the jury and the trial that follows. It becomes clear that people attempted to rely on tactics that served them in the past, but doing so this time could not guarantee success. Cannon comes to argue that the first trial provided people with important lessons regarding what the videotape could and could not do, and the role of race within a particular context. Elements that seemed incredibly apparent previously now served their purpose in helping convict Koon and Powell, like Koon’s inability to intervene, as described on page 419. Most significantly, the second trial served as a way to “rewrite history” and bring justice to the situation, as many people were outraged and disappointed with the previous acquittals (Cannon 421). It seems that there was finally an opportunity to both appease and satisfy the people of Los Angeles, and the jury and court took a long time to come to their decision. An essential detail is that King testified in this case where he previously did not. And while he was not particularly eloquent or successful in recalling events, he served his purpose: demonstrating that he is a human being, not an animal as the LAPD often portrayed him to be. The second time around, people were willing to say what they had not before, and perhaps that is why the trial ended so differently.
Chapter 16 picks up in the middle of the trial, when the depth of King’s injuries seems to finally be revealed. Soon after this chapter commences, it is apparent that this trial will operate quite differently. While Koon once succeeded in telling his side of the story, the second time around he came across as “remote” and “technical” (Cannon 446). He ultimately failed to tell his opinions in a way that allowed the jury to see the nature of what happened. His mechanical and straightforward nature served him previously, but in this scenario he made a mistake in not showing any emotion. While my understanding of the technicalities of law is lacking, I have come to understand that even the most minute details play a role in the court. Everything is based in the scenario under which it falls, and considering the context is completely essential. Cannon references that people were quick to rely on tactics that had once asserted their standpoint, but doing so twice is not always the best decision. When people failed to consider the motives behind the case, and in turn, the ultimate goal of the trial, they were unable to escape conviction. It is also important to note that this time around, there was a unified defense. And while this is an essential component, it did not really serve the defense in the end. An important aspect of this text is its technical nature. The newspaper articles did a good job of providing an overview, but really getting to the root of the issue is critical. I found the last couple paragraphs of this chapter to be somewhat shocking. Koon could have easily betrayed Briseno in this situation, but he instead took the honorable route. This represents one of, if not the first, times that he takes accountability and recognizes a difference of opinion.
In chapter 17, the prosecution has finally gained control. From the beginning, an important distinction is made. Clymer “reminded the jurors that King was not on trial and hadn’t killed or robbed anyone the night of his arrest” (Cannon 463). This is a necessary statement, as the defense is wasting their time in attempting to defame King. The trial is no longer about this, as he has proven his human nature and tendencies. This represents a major flaw in their attempts to walk away with an acquittal. A series of crucial mistakes demonstrate a marked difference in the defense the second time around, as they are much less successful in staking their claims. Perhaps the most interesting claim of the chapter happens on 468, when, “The situation was reversed in the federal trial, where King testified and Powell did not. Powell was now the shadowy figure on the screen who was easily demonized by prosecutors as a brutal cop meting out street justice” (Canon). These few sentences demonstrate the crux of what has happened—in a series of events that are the antithesis of what happened before, the defense is being painted as the other, something that did not really happen before. Canon goes on to describe Braun’s argument, during which he makes several historical comparisons that seem to lake value, relevance, or truth. It is clear that he has lost control of the situation and cannot really gain it back. The reader then comes to understand that fear is weighing heavily on the decision. Canon implies that a fear of more riots is certainly a driving factor, and demonstrates a desire to preserve what Los Angeles was meant to be. This speaks directly to the first chapter, a series of pages that outline the vision of Los Angeles as a place of prosperity and peace. And while it seems that the process of finding a jury is a complicated and meticulous one, an important detail emerges on page 479. The reader learns that, “Two male jurors discussed personal experience with drug use. […] Had these men, both of whom supported the conviction of Powell and Koon, told any officer of the court of their history of drug use, they would not have been accepted as jurors” (Cannon 479). While it is unfair to say that the trial would have gone the other way if these men had not served, the implications of this reality weigh heavy. Perhaps the officers would have been acquitted if two other people had been on the jury. But the point is that perhaps the entire trial was swayed due to a few technicalities.
Lastly, in chapter 18, Cannon posits whether or not the trial was fair. In these moments, Koons seems to finally appear human in terms of his emotions and feelings of betrayal. His blatant statements regarding his lack of racism puzzle me, as this claim is at the center of everything. Another trial is chronicled in these pages. A group of young black men attempted to kill a truck driver during the riots. Naturally comparisons will be drawn between this and the Rodney King trial, as both are racially charged and involve videotape. Ultimately the men walk away relatively unscathed, and the reactions are less than favorable. The role of fear is once again important to consider, as it was on everyone’s minds. The results represent “A blow to the justice system” and so many were “disturbed by the verdicts” (Cannon 514). Ultimately this case and its results at least to some degree detract from the progress made by the second Rodney King trial. Ultimately, one must consider the political nature surrounding these instances, as much of the decisions are based in political desires. The overwhelming message is that nothing is what it appears to be on the surface, and one must look at both historical and cultural contexts when looking at any trial.
This post is definitely the weakest. It is wordy and relies on plot summary. Some stronger points emerge. At the beginning, an important parallel is drawn between the document in the second trial and the videotape in the first. It is stated that the second case operated quite differently. While this is true, more needs to be said. Main points include the fact that the video served differently, the location of the trials, a call to humanity, and the nature of varied jurors. Next, the call to understanding Los Angeles at the time draws an important parallel to the first chapter of "Official Negligence". But mere plot summary drives this particular part of the commentary.
ReplyDeleteThere are also points where examples would be helpful. A lack of them provides an incredibly vague post. No real or concrete claims are made about the overall argument. But in reviewing this post, it emerges. Canon is saying that details and positionality are incredibly important in trials. He provides a commentary on the nature of the law and the fact that nothing is black-and-white. In turn, Canon reiterates just how complicated the trial and incident really were. The paragraph about Chapter 16 makes a claim, but fails to define its importance. Seeing the reality of King's injuries provides a direct manifestation of the brutality by providing its physical presence. It brings a new element to the trial, as King attempts to prove his own humanity. The end of this paragraph is successful as it appeals to a shocking aspect of this trial. It is contingent upon an understanding of previous events and expectations.
The section about chapter 17 lacks any real claims beyond stating what Canon tells the reader. An elaboration would point to the larger implications of the differing trials, such as the reality of law and justice in its attempts to provide appropriate answers. Next, this paragraph could be tied into the rest of the narrative. Fear is embedded throughout "Official Negligence", and drawing attention to this fact reveals how important these trials really were.
Though jumbled and wordy, this post is trying to define Canon's argument. He is saying that no trial can stand alone. It is impossible to look at something without seeing and incorporating the context. Overall, this post needs to do a better job of getting to the point. This can happen by avoiding plot summary and vague language. Next, there is a good base commentary, but elaboration would provide a more concrete demonstration of thought processes. Along the same lines, thoughts need to be delved into deeper. Key facts are addressed, but only on the most simple level. A reliance on the text would also provide a stronger argument. Lastly, the posting needs to look at larger implications to understand what is being said about the events.
The argument here is an overwhelming sense of the importance of historical context and a continued commentary on the law.