Thank You, Rodney King!
Over at Telegraph blogs today I pay tribute in my inimitable, tasteful way to the late Rodney King - the man responsible for giving me my first big break in journalism when, while on holiday in California in April 1992, I accidentally ended up covering the LA riots.
I'm sure for many of those caught up in the riots it was a nightmare. But covering them as a journalist was a blast because I was young and dumb with delusions of immortality. Even scarier than my encounter with the "Four-Tray Crips" - see above - was when I found myself driving with a colleague through South Central in a red open-topped Ford Mustang. The car was fine for its original rental purpose: cruising San Diego while covering the Americas Cup. But definitely somewhat provocative when driven in the midst of the riots by two very conspicuous white guys.
We were lost, looking for a pastor's house, and we took a turn down a side road to be greeted by a very tall black man standing in the middle of the road, staring at us, with something long and metallic dangling from his hand. As we drove closer - very, very slowly - we saw what it was: a .44 Magnum with a silencer on it. I didn't look him in the eyes. I pretended not to have noticed anything at all. As we drove past, buttocks clenched so tight they wouldn't untighten again for several hours thereafter, I felt the guy studying us curiously, trying to decide what to do. We cruised on (slowly, so as not to provoke) and I wondered how it would feel to be shot in the back of the head or in the back through my car seat by the world's most powerful handgun. Did I feel lucky, punk?
Anyway, I hope I'm not spoiling the story by telling you that he didn't shoot and I lived to see another day. This is the thing about scary life or death experiences which could go either way. If they go wrong, you die. If they go right, they end up as just another amusing anecdote.
- Comment (16)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
May '12
Re: Thank You, Rodney King!
James Delingpole:
... We were lost, looking for a pastor's house, and we took a turn down a side road to be greeted by ...
· 10 minutes ago
Ha! Surely there is a screenplay to be developed here.
Re: Thank You, Rodney King!
It's early but I nominate this for post of the week.
Jun '10
Re: Thank You, Rodney King!
I could never come away with over $3-million dollars for being beaten with batons by police (after being unsuccessfully tased twice.) I heal fast. Life's not fair.
Nov '11
Re: Thank You, Rodney King!
James, to get an accurate picture, was this the famed .44 Magnum of Dirty Harry? I ask because putting a suppressor on a revolver is useless because of the gap between cylinder and barrel.
If it was indeed a revolver with a silencer you should probably count yourself as doubly blessed simply because anyone who would attach a suppressor on a revolver is either a fool or a maniac and quite likely is thinking he can get away with shooting someone because of something he saw on TV.
Re: Thank You, Rodney King!
What was tough about your situation was that for all you knew that gentleman with the gun could have been very much on your side - just a citizen with a gun protecting his home, business and family while the riots raged.
I found myself on foot in downtown Newak coming out of the court house on that day. At first we locked ourselves in. Once we ventured out, the hardest part was trying to figure out who was looking to do harm and who was not.
There is just no real way of knowing.
Re: Thank You, Rodney King!
@Austin Just my luck to have the details queried by an expert. Here's the thing: it was a very big handgun with a very long silencer-like thing at the end. More than that I cannot say with technical accuracy. But I did very much ask myself: "Why? Why in the middle of the day has this guy got a silencer on his handgun? And why is he exposing it so flagrantly?" You'll gather that this is why my buttocks were clenched.
Re: Thank You, Rodney King!
@tommy de seno. Well, I felt safer in Koreatown, I must say. At least there you know the shopkeepers with Armalites were friendlies - and a lot more reliable than the National Guard who, I was horrified to discover later, weren't carrying live ammo.
Re: Thank You, Rodney King!
There were riots in my home town and the Guard used some sort of pepper balls instead of metal projectiles. I suppose they would have gone to the more lethal bullets if they had to.
Re: Thank You, Rodney King!
Well, James, it might have been fun and games to you, but to some of us who were living here during that time it was....
...well, it was sort of fun, too. I lived in Santa Monica at the time.
But I, too, have a journalistic connection to the riots. It's here, if anyone's interested.
May '10
Re: Thank You, Rodney King!
I'm curious about the whole silencer thing, too. If you're going to tote a .44 magnum, a silencer really defeats the purpose. The firepower can deal with one target, but the cannon roar will disperse any crowd ever assembled.
Dec '10
Re: Thank You, Rodney King!
I don't have any direct knowledge, but I've read that silencers are not nearly as effective as they are portrayed to be in pouplar fiction and TV/movies. Does anybody here know how effective they really are?
Jan '11
Re: Thank You, Rodney King!
I have a handy tip. A friend of mine took a similar wrong turn in Detroit a while ago, and his car was stopped and surrounded. Quickly thinking, he rolled down the window and said "where can I go - the cops are chasing me". The road cleared quickly. Clever!
Nov '11
Re: Thank You, Rodney King!
@ James: Somehow the details don't matter in the long run, but the mental picture you painted was fantastic (in the positive sense of course) and I wanted to make it clear in my mind. The best prose paints a better picture than any photo. Bravo by the way because I'm afraid that clenching would not be my particular problem in that situation to be honest!
Foxman: I don't have any direct knowledge, but I've read that silencers are not nearly as effective as they are portrayed to be in pouplar fiction and TV/movies. Does anybody here know how effective they really are? · 44 minutes ago
Edited 40 minutes ago
Fox, they're really quite useful in disguising the location a shot is coming from, but not that a shot is occurring. TV would have you believe you get a soft "phut" sound: it's still a loud sound, even with "sub-sonic" ammo. You can actually see YouTube videos of people using a silencer/suppressor and they're suprisingly loud - which is exactly why reality is ignored in fiction. Like cell service it's inconvenient to hackneyed plots.
Jun '10
Re: Thank You, Rodney King!
Given that King was willing to lie about police brutality, or let the lie about police brutality stand, and that this lie led directly to the riots that killed over a hundred (I believe) and resulted in billions in property damage, King can rot in hell. May Damian "Football" Williams follow him soon.
Re: Thank You, Rodney King!
Silencers will work—to an extent—on revolvers, but as people note, it's not silent. Hence the more accurate term "suppressor." You could probably reduce some of the muzzle blast of a .44 Magnum S&W, but I doubt it'd obviate the need for ear protection on a range (one reason people buy suppressors—though you need to clear it with the ATF). Also, I don't know how many times you could fire it before it'd basically be blown out. Also, not to be an impertinent colonial, Mr. D, but surely it's "Four-Trey," as in ace, deuce, trey…
Dec '10
Re: Thank You, Rodney King!
Forget everything else. Be damn glad you didn't run into Damien "Football" Williams that day. He don't be needin' no damn .44 Mag suppressed or not.