I wanted to reflect more upon what Prof. H brought up quickly at the end of the Rodney King discussion: the frame of justified versus excessive force, and how it seemed that through our arguments, we were really trying to ask for the central question to be modified to treatment as a human being versus not. I think that we, looking at the case, would really like to ask this question (“Was Rodney King treated as a human being and given the respect he deserved?), because to us, the answer is an unequivocal no. The prosecutors would have also agreed with the no. However, this question doesn’t hold up in a court of law, so they were confined to arguing the case through the focus on force, with the hidden question of King’s humanity/deserved respect underneath. Among other mistakes, the defense didn’t emphasize King’s humanity/personal perspective of the beating enough, and by arguing the case through the frame of force, the defense was able to acquit the officers. The acquittal also served to signal to the world that, in the legal context, the answer to the wider question of acknowledgement of King’s humanity was also a “no”.

It reminds me of the saying that “what’s right isn’t always legal, and what’s legal isn’t always right”. The law can simply serve as one lens/frame through which we can look at or impose upon the world and our actions.