RODNEY KING TRIAL / GOODWIN READING

At the end of the lecture, which helped me understand why people think the world is so corrupt, JRR threw the term Kuleshov Effect at us. I've got much to say about the riots and reaction to the Rodney King state trial, but that is for another blog. My opinion on the verdict, while people will yell "Corruption!" and other undying slander against "crooked pigs" forever, is that it's like something out of a movie with a tragic ending. There will be the main characters, devastated from the loss, and then some sort of cut to the bad guys who've just won, and the insinuating background music implying that they'll never lose. Their tactics are untouchable, and in some course of history, thinkers on their side thought up a defence for nearly beating a man to death. What if there hadn’t been a tape!?!?
Lord, put Charles Goodwin's character in the sequel.
In Professional Vision, he establishes the characteristics of information being codified in its presentation, specifically in the discourse of a profession. I love his analogy of the patch of dirt, and how it is so widely interpreted from farmers to archaeologists; one considers the benefits of it to crop production, the other may focus negatively on its staining of artifacts.
To codify a specific event or issue, perhaps the use of excessive force, obviously takes some considerably loose definitions. Where the prosecution showed the video once and thought it would speak for itself, the defence's hours of studying and presentation of the material must have been their only hope. Applying framework (terminology, phrasing, expert emphasis) to their creation is clearly vital. What the defence created is an object of knowledge out of both the tape (domain of scrutiny) and their codified representation it (discursive practices).
The bad guys transformed the mindset of the entire jury into accepting that the defence was as viable and logical as charging them for beating a man to near-death. It's written that a juror understood if the expert testimonials were equally sound, the decision reverts to innocence. Fortunately for the defendants, they highlighted certain aspects of police work and administering of force to the extent that the jurors' object of knowledge was totally re-created; totally defined.
I'm not a proponent of impulsive decision, but upon seeing a tape of a man being brutally beaten, most people's reactions range from sympathy to fear to frustration. I am for hearing both sides, but I feel like I'm being smacked in the face with the explanation that "the beating constituted an example of careful police work, a form of professional discourse with the victim in which he was a very active co-particpant." Well, someone's skull, back and legs had to receive the baton blows and kicks.
No.
Not all of them, not categorized as 10 different periods, and sure as hell not justified by periods of escalation and de-escalation. I interpret this as what Goodwin calls "producing and articulating material representations." I think he brings up how it is not only problematic that Duke is in court trying to justify that King’s position on the ground, with one palm up, “causes him concern”, but also that he is speaking from a perspective so localized, it neglects any humane view!
Sometimes seeing something real on a TV screen makes you really want it to be fiction. That blurry tape makes me feel that way.