Civil Disobedience Martin Luther King David Thoreau La Riot Essay Example
Civil Disobedience
On April 29, 1992, the City of Los Angeles was surrounded in a riot in response to the "not guilty" verdicts in the trial of four white Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers accused of unlawfully beating Rodney King. Six days later, when the fires were finally extinguished and the smoke had cleared, "estimates of the material damage done vary between about $800 million and $1 billion, 54 people had been killed, more than 2000 injured, in excess of 800 structures were burned, and about 10,000 people were arrested."(Khalifah 89) The 1992 riots in the City of Los Angeles were arguably the most devastating civil disturbance in the history of the United States.
Anyone can say that a law is unfair and unjust. However, who is really willing to accept the consequences for going against this law? Is breaking this law really worth the punishment? The government is the one to decide whether a law is reasonable, but what if a member of the public believes that a law is not? Should he rebel against this law? Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. answered yes to this question and believed that one should speak out against an injustice. They both believed that government had many flaws. They shared many beliefs in the same subjects concerning Civil Disobedience but had many different views on how the government should work and how the citizen should be treated by society.
Civil disobedience can turn into civil disturbance. When a white truck driver, Reginald Denny, was dragged from his vehicle and severely beaten by an angry mob. Both Martin Luther King Jr. and Thoreau believed that one should act out against an unjust law by means of peaceful protest. Therefore both King and Thoreau would not support the rebels' violent behavior of the LA riots. If one is going to openly express his ideas of disagreeing with an unjust law, he must be willing to accept the consequences. Both Martin Luther King Jr. and Thoreau demonstrated this acceptance
On April 29, 1992, the City of Los Angeles was surrounded in a riot in response to the "not guilty" verdicts in the trial of four white Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers accused of unlawfully beating Rodney King. Six days later, when the fires were finally extinguished and the smoke had cleared, "estimates of the material damage done vary between about $800 million and $1 billion, 54 people had been killed, more than 2000 injured, in excess of 800 structures were burned, and about 10,000 people were arrested."(Khalifah 89) The 1992 riots in the City of Los Angeles were arguably the most devastating civil disturbance in the history of the United States.
Anyone can say that a law is unfair and unjust. However, who is really willing to accept the consequences for going against this law? Is breaking this law really worth the punishment? The government is the one to decide whether a law is reasonable, but what if a member of the public believes that a law is not? Should he rebel against this law? Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. answered yes to this question and believed that one should speak out against an injustice. They both believed that government had many flaws. They shared many beliefs in the same subjects concerning Civil Disobedience but had many different views on how the government should work and how the citizen should be treated by society.
Civil disobedience can turn into civil disturbance. When a white truck driver, Reginald Denny, was dragged from his vehicle and severely beaten by an angry mob. Both Martin Luther King Jr. and Thoreau believed that one should act out against an unjust law by means of peaceful protest. Therefore both King and Thoreau would not support the rebels' violent behavior of the LA riots. If one is going to openly express his ideas of disagreeing with an unjust law, he must be willing to accept the consequences. Both Martin Luther King Jr. and Thoreau demonstrated this acceptance