Civil Disobedience Martin Luther King David Thoreau LA riot Essay

Civil disobedienceOn 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 un honorfully beating Rodney queen. Six days later, when the fires were finally extinguished and the smoke had cleared, estimates of the real damage d peerless vary between ab kayoed $800 million and $1 billion, 54 the great unwashed had been killed, more than 2000 injured, in excess of 800 structures were burned, and about 10,000 passel were arrested.(Khalifah 89) The 1992 riots in the City of Los Angeles were arguably the most devastating civilised affray in the history of the United States.Anyone can say that a law is unfair and foul. However, who is really willing to accept the consequences for going against this law? Is gap this law really worth the punishment? The politics is the one to determine whether a law is reasonable, but what if a member of the p ublic believes that a law is not? Should he rebel against this law? Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther fagot younger answered yes to this question and believed that one should let the cat out of the bag out against an injustice. They twain 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 raw 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 Luthe r King Jr. and Thoreau demonstrated this adoption of consequences by going to jail without repercussion. This shows that they truly believed in the eradication of such(prenominal) a law that forces them to do something that they do not want to do. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested for gathering with others to protest peacefully, which the police claimed was unlawful, because they were parading without a permit. Martin Luther King Jr. peacefully went ... ...or not paying taxes. Martin Luther King serves a sentence, which is usually lengthy than a day, for a peaceful protest. Not paying taxes seems a mound more incriminating than having a peaceful gathering. However, the laws live with changed considerably since the epoch of Thoreau. Despite this, there still was a double standard that people of different races had to deal with. The answer to the question whether one should disobey an unjust law is yes. One should stand up for what he believes in, and not suck up anyone else dictate to him what is right or wrong by passing unjust laws. According to the U.S. Constitution, one has the right of free speech the ability to speak out against a law that he believes is morally unjust.(____) People should not be treated differently because of their race, color, or beliefs. Laws should not be passed that shoot the breeze bad intentions upon certain groups. In conclusion, King and Thoreau believe one should have the right to question their authority if the authority has passed an immorally just law. The right smart looters questioned the injustice has gone overboard, affecting the lives of innocence is not what King and Thoreau believed in terms of civil disobedience.