No '92 Riots

[The Vulture]

Suppose Rodney King decides not to drive home after drinking and therefore is not arrested or filmed. This means no riots the following year. What would a world where these riots never happened be like, or would that pent-up anger just explode over something else later on?

 

[Thande]

Well, I can think of two effects on the face of it. One, I would not have an interesting story about us getting lost in the dodgy area of LA in '92, and two, it would prevent some of the Nineties "LA = Budding Dystopia" action film staples (e.g. Demolition Man).

 

[TheMann]

Suppose Rodney King decides not to drive home after drinking and therefore is not arrested or filmed. This means no riots the following year. What would a world where these riots never happened be like, or would that pent-up anger just explode over something else later on?

It was bound to explode at some point. South Central Los Angeles is not a nice place, and between 20%+ unemployment, racial tensions, the rather poor treatment of different ethnic minorities, the Latasha Harlins case (young black girl shot dead by Korean store owner in dispute gone horribly wrong, murdered didn't do a day in jail) and the actions of the LAPD (which had grown a reputation for brutality - and particularly-bad groups like the Rampart CRASH bunch made it worse still) all added up to a lot of anger. Frankly, what happened in LA in 1992 could have been a helluva lot worse, and the explosion was simply a matter of time. Dollars to doughnuts there will be another such boom there sometime in the future, with the demographic changes probably adding an additional mess.

 

[troosvelt]

Though an interesting shift could be if the riots are delayed a year or two, so they happen under Clinton instead of Bush.

Does this hurt him with the liberal base or does it enhance his image as a centrist with middle class voters ?