Does anyone have video of the Korean shop owners during the 1992 LA riots?


PDA






jlbraun
October 11, 2006, 12:55 PM
I heard they were up on the rooftops with rifles and white headbands. I'm interested in seeing it for myself. Does anyone know where I can find it?

If you enjoyed reading about "Does anyone have video of the Korean shop owners during the 1992 LA riots?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
roscoe
October 11, 2006, 02:25 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DfmEjIJyDT8

fast forward to the 3 minute mark

I don't know about the white head bands. Are you thinking of "Tora Tora Tora"?

Lonestar
October 11, 2006, 03:04 PM
don't know about the white head bands. Are you thinking of "Tora Tora Tora"?

I wondered about that too. I wondered if it has any significance, or was it to keep sweat out of their eyes.

MikeH
October 11, 2006, 03:14 PM
Hachimaki(headband) are thin cotton towels or strips of cloth tied around the head. Originally worn as a charm against evil spirits in ancient times, they are worn today not so much for the practical purpose to catch the perspiration but rather for a mental stimulation purpose to express one's determination. For example you might see people wearing hachimaki in a walk-out for a wage hike or political demonstration in the streets. Also heavy physical labor and such strenuous activities as carrying portable shrine (mikoshi) at festivals have people wearing them. Some students wear hachimaki when they study to put themselves in the spirit.

http://www.jun-gifts.com/specialcollections/headbands/headbands.htm

StiKiller
October 11, 2006, 03:37 PM
i'm sorry, i'm korean, and this is one of the reasons i will be purchasing a rifle, and a handgun soon, i own a beauty supply store in an urban area in philadelphia, and i will not let anything like this happen, if i was in la when this was happening, it would have been target practice for me. :cuss:

jlbraun
October 11, 2006, 04:10 PM
Thanks, I appreciate it!

Rezin
October 11, 2006, 05:00 PM
StiKiller, a shotgun is also a good choice!!! :D :D

duckandcover
October 12, 2006, 05:40 PM
I watched a documentary on the LA Riots yesterday. "The Final Report:LA Riots" on National Geographic Channel. According to their website, it will be re-aired first week of November.

You might also want to check your library for a copy of "Sa-i-gu". My library here at the University of Texas has it and the focus on the Korean-American perspective is very powerful.

TITLE:
Sa-i-gu
PUBLISHED:
San Francisco, CA : CrossCurrent Media ; National Asian American Telecommunications Association, 1993.
DESCRIPTION:
1 videocassette (39 min.) : sd., col. ; 1993.
SERIES:
Ethnic studies video collection
NOTES:
In Korean with English subtitles.
Credits: Producers, Christine Choy, Elaine Kim, Dai Sil Kim-Gibson ; writer/director, Dai Sil Kim-Gibson ; co-director, Christine Choy ; editor, Richard Stilwell ; camera, Christine Choy.
Summary: Explores the embittering effect the Rodney King verdict and riot had on Korean American women shopkeepers who suffered more than half of the material losses in the conflict. Film underscores the shattering of the American dream while taking the media to task for playing up the "Korean-Black" aspect of the rioting.
VHS.

Run&Shoot
October 13, 2006, 01:15 PM
I really like those Korean shop owners. We had a Korean store owner as a neigbor at our previous house and that guy worked HARD. I can understand after working that hard they were not about to let looters just saunter in and run off with their livelihood. What a great example of creating the American dream, and then standing up to protect it from riff raff.

A worked with a former LRRP from Vietnam times and he patrolled with ROKs across the DMZ. They would run the flanks for the American patrol team. He said nothing, absolutely NOTHING ever got through their flanks. He said the ROKs were totally fearless and couragegous and would never back down no matter the odds. If a ROk was out there there he never worried about being surprised or infiltrated.

Nice to see a minority group buy into the WHOLE American experience, economic as well as self defense.

StiKiller
October 13, 2006, 01:23 PM
thanks duckandcover, i'll look into that~ Even though I was born here in the U.S, I still have my roots in Korea, and I am Korean after all, I love how we all get a chance to live our dreams in America, I feel bad for those in countries such as China and North Korea, just sad.

epijunkie67
October 13, 2006, 11:06 PM
Rezin
StiKiller, a shotgun is also a good choice!!!

I would tend to disagree. In this case the expected targets are people on the street who may be mixed with non-looters. A shotgun can be a bit indiscriminent about its field of fire and I'd hate for a noncombatent to get hit. I guess the other possibility would be to use birdshot as a deterent but that tends to raise a different set of issues.

Really, now that I think about it there doesn't seem to be any good answers to this problem. A real rifle like a 30-30 or .308 is going to be more power than you'd really want given the mix of targets and the environment. Overpenetration or a miss endangers a lot of people. Shotguns with buckshot would throw a wide pattern at distance and with slugs we're back to the rifle problem. Pistol caliber carbines would seem to be somewhat safer but lack the stopping power you'd want in a potentially deadly situation.

I also wonder about after action legal concerns. Say a group of looters gets too close to a store and the owner opens fire. A looter dies and a few get injured but live. Order is restored the next day. Now what? I'm the kind of guy that thinks a lot of criminals deserve whatever they get but I'm not the guy writting the laws. Legally you'd have a guy waving a gun around outside his store and shooting people on the street. The looters of course are going to claim they never touched the store owner, and in fact they didn't.

Whichever way it went it court it'd be a freaking nightmare for the shooter. And for what? They protected their stuff. A large percentage of people frown on deadly force simply for the protection of property. And don't tell me they were protecting themselves. They were camped out in front of their store protecting their property. If they'd stayed home when the looting started they would have been perfectly safe and never had to fire on anyone. They might have lost thousands of dollars in stuff but in the end, it's just stuff.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying to just let the criminals have anything they want but I'm also pointing out that firing on another human being can have some pretty heavy consequences. You might want to really consider all of them before you decide to kill someone just to protect your stuff.

Oleg Volk
October 14, 2006, 12:08 AM
Firing would have been done to protect lives from mob violence and arson. One person could reason with the mob, others would cover with rifles. Any firing would be done to protect the negotiator.

Cosmoline
October 14, 2006, 12:18 AM
I've lived in the Korean dominanted parts of Anchorage off and on for many years. I currently have a smiling, happy Korean landlord who without hesitation put six slugs into a would-be robber a few years ago. The attacks in LA are well known by the Korean communities across the nation, and believe me they're prepared. They ALL have heat, both the small stuff by the cash register and the other stuff kept sealed up just in case. If the SHTF, find the Koreans.

A real rifle like a 30-30 or .308 is going to be more power than you'd really want given the mix of targets and the environment.

Maybe more power than YOU would really want. An angry mob coming after my broad behind is going to get a dose of every thing I can possibly throw at it, from 54R SP's to IED's made from propane cans and gasoline. The LA looters weren't recovering from some natural disaster, they were a murderous mob totally out of control. When you face something like that and you can't get them to back off nicely, you have to be prepared to unleash whatever hell you can. I guaran-damn-tee you every Korean you see in those pictures trying to use a handgun to protect himself wished he had a really big battle rifle. And I know some of them who do--now.

statelineblues
October 14, 2006, 12:31 AM
Spent a year in South Korea while in the Army - treat these people with respect and honesty, and they are the greatest :) ; treat them badly and you get what you deserve :fire: !

Redneck with a 40
October 14, 2006, 12:43 AM
And what rifle did those Korean shop owners use to protect their stores?......The good o'le SKS!:D :D :cool:

Leanwolf
October 14, 2006, 12:46 AM
EPIJUNKIE67 - "Pistol caliber carbines would seem to be somewhat safer but lack the stopping power you'd want in a potentially deadly situation."


You're kidding??

A .44 Magnum, .45 Colt, .41 Magnum, or .357 Magnum from a rifle/carbine, poking some miscreant in the chest or head, would lack "stopping power"???

I'd sure hate to be on the receiving end of a bullet from a rifle/carbine, in any one of those calibers. :uhoh:

JMHO.

L.W.

10 Ring Tao
October 14, 2006, 01:52 AM
About a year ago I asked for these kinds of videos and no one was able to produce. Thank you!

epijunkie67
October 14, 2006, 02:03 AM
Leanwolf
You're kidding??

A .44 Magnum, .45 Colt, .41 Magnum, or .357 Magnum from a rifle/carbine, poking some miscreant in the chest or head, would lack "stopping power"???

Not really. I was thinking more along the lines of the 9mm and .40 cal carbines I see people buying. I've got levers in 3 of the four calibers you mention and I think they would work fine for self defense.

Oleg Volk
Firing would have been done to protect lives from mob violence and arson. One person could reason with the mob, others would cover with rifles. Any firing would be done to protect the negotiator.

Ah, but if the store owners had all stayed home, and away from the danger zone, there wouldn't be a need to protect anybody. It's like many of the threads we get here on THR that follow the "What if you know you're going to a dangerous area of town and will need a gun...", the most frequent response is "I wouldn't go there." If you have the option of avoiding a possible deadly force situation you better have a really good reason for going there anyway.

You and I are walking down the street and are both carrying concealed when we notice a group of 4 guys breaking into my car and stealing the stereo. We can either (A) Call the police on our cell phones and observe from a distance possibly allowing them to make off with my property but preserving the lives of everyone involved or (B) Approach them and demand they stop. I'll negotiate and if they rush us you open fire on them and hope they don't get us in the rush. Even if option B is legal it still amounts to the fact that we got involved in a deadly conflict over a piece of property when we could have chosen a course of action that allowed ALL of us to escape unharmed.

Cosmoline
Maybe more power than YOU would really want. An angry mob coming after my broad behind is going to get a dose of every thing I can possibly throw at it...

I agree. If I'm going to be in a firefight I want overwhelming power on my side. Give me a freaking flamethrower with a side order of full auto overlapping fields of fire. But, what do you do when there are nonlooters in the background? Are you prepared to unleash hell on a half dozen looters in the middle of the street knowing that there are innocent nonlooters standing 30 feet behind them? I know the looters were "out of control" but we aren't talking about firing on enemy solders in heavy jungle terrain. We're talking about firing a .308 battle rifle in a heavely urban city environment where a miss might kill an innocent person several hundred yards away.

Again, don't get me wrong. I think the people that looted were scum and deserve anything they get. But I'm trying to look at the broader picture. Not everybody in the city, or even in those particular neighborhoods, were looters. We're talking about projecting force in a volitile situation where there are a lot of innocent people that WE might injure or kill by accident. And it would be injuries or deaths that could be avoided by not being there in the first place. We always preach that deadly force is for protecting lives, not protecting possesions.

I'm just wondering why you would place yourself in a position you know could result in a deadly force encounter when you have the option of avoiding it and what you could do to minimize the risk to innocent civilians if you were required to use deadly force against the crowd?

DirtyBrad
October 14, 2006, 02:04 AM
Good to see honest people protecting themselves. Man, looters and mobs really make me sick. I pray non of us ever have to experience any of that.

The beginning made me roll my eyes. Rodney King wasn't exactly pulled over for a "routine traffic stop".

DRZinn
October 14, 2006, 10:36 AM
We can either (A) Call the police on our cell phones and observe from a distance possibly allowing them to make off with my property but preserving the lives of everyone involved or (B) Approach them and demand they stop. I'll negotiate and if they rush us you open fire on them and hope they don't get us in the rush. Even if option B is legal it still amounts to the fact that we got involved in a deadly conflict over a piece of property when we could have chosen a course of action that allowed ALL of us to escape unharmed.They, by actions they chose, have put themselves in a situation wherein they will be confronted by an armed man. If it ends poorly for them, that's not my problem. I am not obligated to let them walk away with my property.

I'm just wondering why you would place yourself in a position you know could result in a deadly force encounter when you have the option of avoiding itThe value of the life of a looter approaches zero to me. If I were a store owner, the store and its contents would be far more valuable.

StiKiller
October 14, 2006, 05:39 PM
The value of the life of a looter approaches zero to me. If I were a store owner, the store and its contents would be far more valuable


AMEN to that !!!!

DerringerUser
October 14, 2006, 07:16 PM
I would've organized a small malitia, armed with shotguns, handguns, and semi autos, such as SKS or AR 10s. You are much more effective in a group, and it is easier to fight off a mob. I dont live in a big city, so hopefully i wont have to worry about that.

Again, don't get me wrong. I think the people that looted were scum and deserve anything they get. But I'm trying to look at the broader picture. Not everybody in the city, or even in those particular neighborhoods, were looters. We're talking about projecting force in a volitile situation where there are a lot of innocent people that WE might injure or kill by accident. And it would be injuries or deaths that could be avoided by not being there in the first place. We always preach that deadly force is for protecting lives, not protecting possesions.


Thats why i would choose semi autos over autos in this situation. You can take a large mob, but its more accurate, and less of a danger to bystanders.

I would also have some pellet guns, rubber bullets, or other less lethal guns and ammunition to disperse bystanders or a mob walking by.

Lonestar
October 19, 2006, 09:09 AM
i'm sorry, i'm korean, and this is one of the reasons i will be purchasing a rifle, and a handgun soon, i own a beauty supply store in an urban area in philadelphia, and i will not let anything like this happen, if i was in la when this was happening, it would have been target practice for me.

StiKiller, I'm originally from South Philly, if your store is anywhere in West Philly, North Philly, Grays Ferry or near South Street (Nice neighborhood, but lots of riots break out there, almost yearly) you need a firearm. Actually I would not take my chances in any part of a large urban city, but those places I mentioned had a riot within the last 50 years or has the potential.

geekWithA.45
October 19, 2006, 10:31 AM
Just skimmed the video Roscoe linked.

Interesting, the difference a choice of words can make.

The video maker decided to label that section (approx quote)

"Realizing that most of the violence was targetting them, the Korean community reacted with violence."

which paints a very different picture, than, oh, say "Realizing they were under attack, the Korean community defended itself".

30 cal slob
October 19, 2006, 11:10 AM
this thlead is making me RMAO.

you know, koleans ale stubboln hald-dlinking bastards, the ilish of the east they say.

the wolst of them ale the crass III koleans. they'rr have sevelar pistors, supplessed smg's, battre lifres AND shotguns and pires of ammo at the leady.

-srob, a crass III kolean :neener:

The-Fly
October 19, 2006, 11:53 AM
The LA riots and Katrina are perfect examples of why an AK-47 or AR-15 in law abiding civilian hands is a good thing.

romma
October 19, 2006, 12:21 PM
You and I are walking down the street and are both carrying concealed when we notice a group of 4 guys breaking into my car and stealing the stereo. We can either (A) Call the police on our cell phones and observe from a distance possibly allowing them to make off with my property but preserving the lives of everyone involved or (B) Approach them and demand they stop. I'll negotiate and if they rush us you open fire on them and hope they don't get us in the rush. Even if option B is legal it still amounts to the fact that we got involved in a deadly conflict over a piece of property when we could have chosen a course of action that allowed ALL of us to escape unharmed.
If it is your property being looted, I believe you should be able to walk up, investigate, and demand "said looters" to vacate the premises. Of course doing so may put you and your cohorts at risk from the "said looters". However, if the "said looters" escalate the situation with a violent response, Well then, they get what they have coming to them (rhymes with dead looters),,, hopefully. Just my opinion...

molonlabe
October 19, 2006, 12:40 PM
The LAPD along with their then Police Chief Gates (I think his name was) chose to stand down and let the looting, mob beatings and burnings continue. At that point any store owner needed to shoot to kill. Thats my opinion, I was there in Gardina CA, two blocks from where thay burned a McDonalds to the ground. I locked up and secured our place of business after everyone was sent home.

The Koreans who defended themselves well their businesses survived.

30 cal slob
October 19, 2006, 02:48 PM
all kidding asides, korean shop owners in LA (and elsewhere) had to protect their shops because they really had no choice.

i would venture to guess that the majority of shop-owners didn't have suitable property insurance coverage (korean immigrants are notorious for skimping on all kinds of insurance) for their businesses, and i'm not really sure riots are covered events anyways.

frankly, i'm of the opinion that there is no piece of property worth risking your life for, even if walking away means a big dent in your livelihood. as a shop owner, if i had insurance coverage, i'd a just packed up and got out while it was hot and picked up the pieces afterwards.

Doug.38PR
October 19, 2006, 03:30 PM
watched the whole video rosco. Very good. There are some here abouts in the net forums that would say those Korean's should have dropped everything, gotten their familys and gotten out of town "property isn't worth dying over."
In my book, those Korean men did the right thing. Did I see one of them on the roof with a submachine gun? Full auto? (If they don't say anything I won't either ;) )

One little problem though. (a little off topic) In the beginning it says "the despite the evidence the cops were declared not guilty." ANd of course plays the tune that RK was a victim of police brutality and showed the portion of the video where they were beating him.
I read an article WAY back when by teh National Review that said the reason the officers were aquitted was because the jury saw the WHOLE video not just the beating part. Also, it wasn't a routine traffic stop as the youtube video said, he lead them on a long high speed chase (which in and of itself doesn't justify beating him). BUT, in the whole video (the part you didn't see on the news) RK was pumped up on drugs and was putting up a hard fight, that's why they had to beat him down. (even in the worst case scenario, how any of this justify's looting and burning homes is beyond me. RK didn't cause the riots, he was the occasion for it.)

50 Freak
October 19, 2006, 04:45 PM
I marched with the rioters during the Rodney King thing. I had a camera and was taking pics (don't ask for pics as they got ruined when I tried reloading the camera while being tear gassed).

Anyways, the rioter (at least in DownTown LA) weren't after Koreans or whoever. They were just out to destroy anything. I watched as they torched stores, a very beautiful Jag (don't know why the owner left it parked on the streets), restaurants etc.

The one most powerful image that still to this day stays in my mind is when we were marching past the Sheriff's detention center. The Deputies were all outside their building standing side by side with nightsticks in hand. The rioters marched right past them and burned down this restaurant right accross the street (that used to be mostly frequented by the Deputies). Deputies didn't even flinch. They were only concerned about protecting their building. Screw all the other buildings around them.

Taught me that when the chips are down, don't relie on the police. They will get to you when they get a chance, but their first priority is their own interests.

Sig245
October 19, 2006, 05:47 PM
I was also in LA at the time of the riots and the police were ordered to retreat. Not by Gates, but by the Mayor and city council. Gates would have gone in with heavy firepower and stopped it right now. It was a PC decision to allow the rioters to vent their anger and feelings!

The Koreans were trapped in many cases, they lived above their stores and had no place to go. They were protecting their homes.

The best type of protection in a riot situaltion is not a handgun or a shotgun, except for close up work. The rioters had to be kept at bay with semi-auto rifles like the AR, mini-14, AK, etc. Anything that could spray some bullets at a distance. That would turn the herd and send them running down another street.

If you allowed the rioters to get within shotgun or handgun range they would also be able to toss their firebombs and burn you out.

It was almost like a total military urban assault event. Very scary situation. All the guns stores were closed and you could not buy ammo. Goes to show if you live in a large metropolitian area you need to keep in stock a few thousand rounds of serious firepower or be prepared to leave your homebase and come back to a burned out foundation.

Leanwolf
October 19, 2006, 06:12 PM
50 FREAK - "The one most powerful image that still to this day stays in my mind is when we were marching past the Sheriff's detention center. The Deputies were all outside their building standing side by side with nightsticks in hand. The rioters marched right past them and burned down this restaurant right accross the street (that used to be mostly frequented by the Deputies). Deputies didn't even flinch. They were only concerned about protecting their building. Screw all the other buildings around them.

Taught me that when the chips are down, don't relie on the police. They will get to you when they get a chance, but their first priority is their own interests."

50 Freak, you're advertising your extreme ignorance of just what was going on there at the "detention center." Because there were many inmates incarcerated there, the primary object of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department was to make 100% certain that those rotten, firebombing pieces of feces with whom you were "marching," DID NOT SET THAT "detention center" on fire!

The Deputy Sheriffs were not concerned with a cafe. (I know exactly where it was and have eaten there.) They were concerned with preventing more than 300 inmates from being burned alive by your fellow "marchers."

BTW, you and your fellow Molotov Cocktail wielding marchers don't have the faintest idea just what awaited you, had you managed to breach that line of PR24 baton holding Deputies, and broken into the building. Same with Parker Center; same with the Federal Building.

L.W.

Run&Shoot
October 19, 2006, 06:13 PM
It sounds civilized to say you would just pack up and leave the store and let rioters burn it to the ground. then let the insurance company pay to get it restored.

If I were a shop owner with insurance, I would be concerned. That policy may have enough coverage during single building instances. But as recent events have demonstrated, if a large areea is destroyed and the damage is in the billions, then the insurance companies will bail out via bankruptcy or other means.

* Will they really pay for 100% restoration of the building, or reloaction to an equivalent building? How will that affect you customer traffic and recognition?

* Will they really pay for 100% restoration of inventory, equipment, displays, and everything else that goes into to the daily operation of the store (computers, filing cabinets, equivalent furniture, phones, etc.)?

* Will they cover the lost profits for the period of time, likely months, that you are out of business? What about the lost opportunity you have with distributors and manufacturers in which if you don't make certain sales volumes per quarter or year you lose benefits or special discounts?

* Will some percentage of your customers abandon you, especially those in the neighborhood, if you cut and run versus standing your ground and adding to the defense of the neighborhood? I am sure a sizable number of customers of Korean shops are feel safer shopping there than someplace that will cut and run.

With all of these Murphy circumstances I think even with insurance a shop keeper stands a reasonable chance of losing their livelihood. How many shopkeepers can afford to be out of business for 6 months and still have a viable business afterward?

For the shop owners this is not a theoretical exercise they can afford to guess wrong on. They have to act in the manner that gives them the best probablities for survival. To me that would be to stand and defend against total destruction of my shop.

30 cal slob
October 19, 2006, 11:41 PM
i don't necessarily disagree with your points, run & shoot.

but it still boils down to property vs. your safety.

being a fairly risk-averse individual, i would not feel it would be worth it to risk my neck just for something that could be replaced down the road.

if the breadwinner of the family is the father, and he gets killed minding the store, where does that leave the rest of the family? i've seen it far too often in other less dire circumstances.

this is just my $0.02, i am not imposing my view on others.

statelineblues
October 19, 2006, 11:46 PM
Most insurance policies have disclaimers about "civil unrest" and "natural disasters" - you won't get a penny from them.

And just try getting insurance AFTER all this takes place..........

Lonestar
October 19, 2006, 11:54 PM
Go getum 50 cent freak...burn down a guy's business that had nothing to do with Rondey King. The cops will just eat somewhere else, and you probably put a Black man or two who worked there out of work. Are you sure the guy who owned the place wasn't Black too. Glad you made South Central a better place:rolleyes:

CleverName
October 20, 2006, 04:00 AM
Y'know, 50 said that he took photos of the rioters - NOT that he burned buildings or whatever.

bg
October 20, 2006, 05:15 AM
After watching the series on KBS about Admiral Yi Sun
Shin and how he handled the Japanese in the mid to
later 1500's one should have major respect for the
Korean people and the turtle ship. Quite a campaigner
he was.
http://www.koreanpatriot.net/images/YiUpper.jpg

I remember watching the riots live as I live about 70 miles
east of L.A.. I recall very clearly the family of the
store that was in that strip mall standing out front
firing weapons protecting their assets while the rioters
were on the warpath. Those doing the rioting didn't
want ANYTHING to do with THAT part of the little
strip mall. Cops were out on the streets doing what
they could. The riots caught PC Gates almost
completey off guard.

gak
October 21, 2006, 04:54 AM
Also, what can you do when the cops are the ones looting ? Some in the Katrina aftermath were even caught on film, nevermind the reports and civilian complaints.

When the mob that wants your stuff includes cops, protecting your store becomes a lot harder.:(

gunsmith
October 21, 2006, 05:10 AM
Also lived right above the store they worked in, so they were protecting their house from arson.
In CA arson is a legit reason to shoot.

If you enjoyed reading about "Does anyone have video of the Korean shop owners during the 1992 LA riots?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!