
A repeat of Rodney King? Local leaders say L.A.'s latest unrest is nothing like 1992
The clashes between National Guard troops, police and protesters in recent days have evoked memories for some Angelenos of the deadly riots that erupted after LAPD officers were acquitted of brutally assaulting Black motorist Rodney King in 1992.
But leaders who were involved in dealing with the uprising more than three decades ago say what has unfolded with President Trump's deployment of soldiers to Los Angeles and surrounding communities bears no resemblance to the coordinated response that took place then.
'It's not even close,' said former LAPD chief and city councilman Bernard Parks, who was a deputy chief in the police department during the 1992 unrest. 'You get a sense that this is all theatrics, and it is really trying to show a bad light on Los Angeles, as though people are overwhelmed.'
The chaos of 1992 unfolded after four LAPD officers who were videotaped beating King the prior year were not convicted. It took place at a time of deep distrust and animosity between minority communities and the city's police department.
Federal troops and California National Guard units joined forces with local law enforcement officers to quell the turmoil, but not without harrowing results. More than 60 people were killed, thousands were injured and arrested, and there was property damage that some estimate exceeded $1 billion.
What has played out recently on the city's streets is significantly more limited in scope, Mayor Karen Bass said.
'There was massive civil unrest [then]. Nothing like that is happening here,' Bass said on CNN on Sunday. 'So there is no need for there to be federal troops on our ground right now.'
As of Wednesday evening, several hundred people had been arrested or detained because of their alleged actions during the protests, or taken into custody by federal officials because of their immigration status. On Tuesday, after the 101 Freeway was blocked by protesters, buildings in downtown Los Angeles were vandalized and businesses ransacked, Bass imposed a curfew in the city's civic core from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. that is expected to last several days.
Zev Yaroslavsky, who served on the City Council in 1992, recalled that year as 'one of the most significant, tragic events in the city's history.'
He described the riots as 'a massive citywide uprising,' with 'thousands of people who were on the streets in various parts of the city, some burning down buildings.'
Yaroslavsky, who was later on the county Board of Supervisors for two decades, said that while some actions protesters are currently taking are inappropriate, the swath of Los Angeles impacted is a small sliver of a sprawling city.
'All you're seeing is what is happening at 2nd and Alameda,' he said. 'There's a whole other city, a whole other county that is going about its business.'
Another significant distinction from 1992, according to people who lived through it, was the bipartisan coordination among local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican, and Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley requested assistance from then-President George H.W. Bush.
That's a stark contrast from what started unfolding last week, when Trump's administration sent ICE agents to Los Angeles and federalized the state's National Guard without request by the state's governor, which last happened in the United States in the 1960s.
'The biggest difference is that the governor requested federal help rather than having it imposed over his objection,' said Dan Schnur, a political professor and veteran strategist who served as Wilson's communication's director in 1992. 'There were some political tensions between state and local elected officials. But both the governor and the mayor set those aside very quickly, given the urgency of the situation.'
Loren Kaye, Wilson's cabinet secretary at the time, noted times have changed since then.
'What I'm worried about is that there aren't the same incentives for resolving the contention in this situation as there were in '92,' he said. Then, 'everyone had incentives to resolve the violence and the issues. It's just different. The context is different.'
Parks, a Democrat, argued that the lack of federal communication with California and Los Angeles officials inflamed the situation by creating a lag in local law enforcement response that made the situation worse.
'You have spontaneous multiple events, which is the Achilles heel of any operation,' he said.
'It's not that they're ill-equipped, and it's not that they're under-deployed,' Parks said. 'It takes a minute. You just don't have a large number of people idly sitting there saying, okay, we are waiting for the next event, and particularly if it's spontaneous.'
Protests can start peacefully, but those who wish to create chaos can use the moment to seek attention, such as by burning cars, Park said. The end result is images viewed by people across the country who don't realize how localized the protests and how limited the damage was in recent days.
'The visuals they show on TV are exactly what the folks in Washington want to be seen,' Parks said.
On Monday, the president deployed hundreds of Marines from Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms. State leaders have asked for a temporary restraining order blocking the military and state National Guard deployments, which is expected to be heard in federal court on Thursday.
Trump, speaking to U.S. Army troops at Ft. Bragg in North Carolina on Tuesday, said that he deployed National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles 'to protect federal law enforcement from the attacks of a vicious and violent mob.'
The president descried protesters as leftists pursuing a 'foreign invasion' of the United States, bent on destroying the nation's sovereignty.
'If we didn't do it, there wouldn't be a Los Angeles,' Trump said. 'It would be burning today, just like their houses were burning a number of months ago.'
Newsom responded that the president was intentionally provoking protesters.
'Donald Trump's government isn't protecting our communities — they're traumatizing our communities,' Newsom said. 'And that seems to be the entire point.'
Activists who witnessed the 1992 riots said the current turmoil, despite being much smaller and less violent, is viewed differently because of images and video seen around the world on social media as well as the plethora of cable outlets that didn't exist previously.
'They keep looping the same damn video of a car burning. It gives the impression cars are burning everywhere, businesses are being looted everywhere,' said Earl Ofari Hutchinson, president of the Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable.
Hutchinson, an activist from South L.A. who raised money to rebuild businesses during the 1992 riots, said he was concerned about the city's reputation.
'L.A. is getting a bad name,' he said.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
With troops in Los Angeles, echoes of the Kent State massacre
Ohio National Guard members with gas masks and rifles advance toward Kent State University students during an anti-war protest on May 4, 1970. More than a dozen students were killed or injured when the guard opened fire. (.) This article was originally published by The Trace. Earlier in June, President Donald Trump deployed thousands of National Guard troops and Marines to quell anti-deportation protests and secure federal buildings in downtown Los Angeles. The move, some historians say, harks back 55 years to May 4, 1970, when Ohio's Republican governor summoned the National Guard to deal with students demonstrating against the Vietnam War at Kent State University. Guard members were ordered to fire over the students' heads to disperse the crowd, but some couldn't hear because they were wearing gas masks. The troops fired at the students instead, killing four and wounding another nine. The shooting served as a cautionary tale about turning the military on civilians. 'Dispatching California National Guard troops against civilian protesters in Los Angeles chillingly echoes decisions and actions that led to the tragic Kent State shooting,' Brian VanDeMark, author of the book 'Kent State: An American Tragedy,' wrote this week for The Conversation. We asked VanDeMark, a history professor at the United States Naval Academy, more about the parallels between 1970 and today. His interview has been edited for length and clarity. After the Kent State shooting, it became taboo for presidents or governors to even consider authorizing military use of force against civilians. Is the shadow of Kent State looming over Los Angeles? VanDeMark: For young people today, 55 years ago seems like a very long time. For the generation that came of age during the '60s and were in college during that period, Kent State is a defining event, shaping their views of politics and the military. There are risks inherent in deploying the military to deal with crowds and protesters. At Kent State, the county prosecutor warned the governor that something terrible could happen if he didn't shut down the campus after the guard's arrival. The university's administration did not want the guard brought to campus because they understood how provocative that would be to student protesters who were very anti-war and anti-military. It's like waving a red flag in front of a bull. The military is not trained or equipped to deal well with crowd control. It is taught to fight and kill, and to win wars. California Governor Gavin Newsom has said that deploying the guard to Los Angeles is inflammatory. What do you fear most about this new era of domestic military deployment? People's sense of history probably goes back five or 10 years rather than 40 or 50. That's regrettable. The people making these decisions — I can't unpack their motivation or perceptions — but I think their sense of history in terms of the dangers inherent in deploying U.S. troops to deal with street protests is itself a problem. There are parallels between Kent State and Los Angeles. There are protesters throwing bottles at police and setting fires. The Ohio governor called the Kent State protesters dissidents and un-American; President Trump has called the Los Angeles demonstrators insurrectionists, although he appears to have walked that back. What do you make of these similarities? The parallels are rather obvious. The general point I wish to make, without directing it at a particular individual, is that the choice of words used to describe a situation has consequences. Leaders have positions of responsibility and authority. They have a responsibility to try to keep the situation under control. Are officers today more apt to use rubber bullets and other so-called less-lethal rounds than in 1970? Even though these rounds do damage, they're less likely to kill. Could that save lives today? Most likely, yes. In 1970, the guard members at Kent State, all they had were tear gas canisters and assault rifles loaded with live ammunition. Lessons have been learned between 1970 and today, and I'm almost certain that the California National Guard is equipped with batons, plastic shields, and other tools that give them a range of options between doing nothing and killing someone. I've touched one of the bullets used at Kent State. It was five and a half inches long. You can imagine the catastrophic damage that can inflict on the human body. Those bullets will kill at 1,000 yards, so the likelihood that the military personnel in Los Angeles have live ammunition is very remote. Trump authorized the deployment of federal troops not only to Los Angeles but also to wherever protests are 'occurring or are likely to occur,' leading to speculation that the presence of troops will become permanent. Was that ever a consideration in the '60s and '70s, or are we in uncharted waters here? In the 1960s and early 1970s, presidents of both parties were very reluctant to deploy military forces against protests. Has that changed? Apparently it has. I personally believe that the military being used domestically against American citizens, or even people living here illegally, is not the answer. Generally speaking, force is not the answer. The application of force is inherently unpredictable. It's inherently uncontrollable. And very often the consequences of using it are terrible human suffering. Before the Kent State shooting, the assumption by most college-aged protesters was that there weren't physical consequences to engaging in protests. Kent State demonstrated otherwise. In Los Angeles, the governor, the mayor, and all responsible public officials have essentially said they will not tolerate violence or the destruction of property. I think that most of the protesters are peaceful. What concerns me is the small minority who are unaware of our history and don't understand the risks of being aggressive toward the authorities. In Los Angeles, we have not just the guard but also the Marines. Marines, as you mentioned, are trained to fight wars. What's the worst that could happen here? People could get killed. I don't know what's being done in terms of defining rules of engagement, but I assume that the Marines have explicitly been told not to load live ammunition in their weapons because that would risk violence and loss of life. I don't think that the guard or the Marines are particularly enthusiastic about having to apply coercive force against protesters. Their training in that regard is very limited, and their understanding of crowd psychology is probably very limited. The crowd psychology is inherently unpredictable and often nonlinear. If you don't have experience with crowds, you may end up making choices based on your lack of experience that are very regrettable. Some people are imploring the Marines and guard members to refuse the orders and stay home. You interviewed guard members who were at Kent State. Do you think the troops deployed to Los Angeles will come to regret it? Very often, and social science research has corroborated this, when authorities respond to protests and interact with protesters in a respectful fashion, that tends to have a calming effect on the protesters' behavior. But that's something learned through hard experience, and these Marines and guard members don't have that experience. The National Guard was deployed in Detroit in 1967; Washington, D.C. in 1968; Los Angeles in 1965 and 1992; and Minneapolis and other cities in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd. Have the Marines ever been deployed? Or any other military branch? Yes. In 1992, in the wake of the Rodney King controversy, the California governor at the time, a Republican named Pete Wilson, asked President George H.W. Bush to deploy not only the guard but also the Marines to deal with street riots in Los Angeles. That's the last time it was done. And how did that go? I'm not an expert on this, but I assure you that the senior officers who commanded those Marines made it very clear that they were not to discharge their weapons without explicit permission from the officers themselves, and they were probably told not to load their weapons with live ammunition. In 1967, during the Detroit riots, the Michigan National Guard was called out to the streets of Detroit. When the ranking senior officer arrived, he ordered the soldiers to remove their bullets from their rifles. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE


CNN
34 minutes ago
- CNN
On his 79th birthday, President Trump is getting a military parade – and millions of expected protestors
As a military-style parade rolls through Washington, DC, on Saturday – President Donald Trump's birthday – millions are expected to take to the streets to form what organizers believe will be the strongest display of opposition to the administration since the president took office in January. More than 1,800 protests across all 50 states are planned through the No Kings movement, which organizers say seeks to reject 'authoritarianism, billionaire-first politics, and the militarization of our democracy.' The mobilization was planned as a direct response to Trump's military parade in celebration of the 250th anniversary of the US Army – which coincides with his 79th birthday. In recent days, all eyes have been on Los Angeles, where Trump has deployed the National Guard and Marines in response to massive protests decrying immigration sweeps – an extraordinary move that protest organizers say has only served to mobilize participants to speak out against authoritarianism. Prev Next Demonstrators have since been protesting immigration action in cities across the nation, including New York, Seattle, Chicago, Austin, Las Vegas and Washington, DC, while the administration has doubled down on its display of military force against its own citizens. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has suggested that the order used to federalize the National Guard to Los Angeles could make way for a similar response to protests in other states. And Texas Gov. Greg Abbott deployed the state's National Guard this week ahead of planned protests, including a 'No Kings' event in San Antonio on Saturday. Missouri's governor, Mike Kehoe, also activated the state's National Guard on Thursday 'as a precautionary measure in reaction to recent instances of civil unrest across the country.' 'We respect, and will defend, the right to peacefully protest, but we will not tolerate violence or lawlessness in our state,' the Republican governor said in a statement. Following the Hands Off! and 50501 protests this Spring, Saturday's demonstrations won't be the first nationwide rejection of Trump's policies – but organizers expect it to be the largest. 'Even conservative estimates say that 3.5 million people turned out for the Hands Off mobilization in April. That's already 1% of the population of the US,' Ezra Levin, co-executive director of Indivisible, the organization backing the No Kings movement, told CNN in a statement. 'No Kings is on track to exceed that by millions more. This is historic.' Officials have estimated Saturday's parade, which will flaunt 7 million pounds of machines and weaponry through Washington, DC, on the president's birthday, could cost up to $45 million. Protest organizers are keeping the planned rallies out of the Capitol, hoping to pull focus away from the spectacle. Instead, a flagship rally is being held in Philadelphia Saturday, as No Kings events are planned to kick off in every state of the nation – some with dozens of local events planned. More than 200 protest events are planned in California, and organizers are expecting especially big turnouts in Phoenix, Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte and Chicago, according to the No Kings website. There are also a number of protests planned across the nation through other groups, meaning the turnout against the Trump administration could be even larger than projected. On Wednesday evening, No Kings organizers spoke to more than 4,000 people on a Zoom call – many of them local hosts for Saturday's protests – preparing them for the intense weekend ahead. 'If you show up on site, and you feel completely overwhelmed by the numbers – first of all, congratulations,' one organizer said. The leaders offered advice for the hosts and those serving as 'marshals' for the events, people specially designated to help address safety concerns and keep the peace on Saturday. Attendees role-played scenarios with hypothetical characters – a participant frustrated that not enough action is being taken to get out the group's message, a right-wing protestor there to harass attendees – emphasizing safety and non-violence. They offered some basic tips for Saturday: deescalate, empathize, listen, never touch a cop. With the political temperature rising in response to immigration sweeps and the use of the National Guard to reign in demonstrations, many of the nation's cities are already seeing protest activity ahead of Saturday. Meanwhile, local and state authorities have been doing their own prep work. Multiple local officials are warning that violence by protest participants this weekend will not be tolerated. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, who characterized the expected protesters as 'radical anti-American groups,' warned that those who attack law enforcement or destroy property will be prosecuted. Other leaders have been more welcoming to protests. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, a Democrat, has said his city will protect people's right to assemble, while ensuring residents' day-to-day lives aren't disrupted. 'The right to protest peacefully is central to our democracy, and the NYPD is committed to ensuring that people can always exercise that right safely,' New York City's Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch said on X this week, as people in the city took to the streets to protest the Trump administration's immigration action. Protest organizers say they have been in touch with local officials ahead of Saturday's events, in an effort to make sure the gatherings run safely and smoothly. The aim, they emphasize, is not violence, but rather to send a clear message to the president on his birthday: 'In America, we don't do kings.' CNN's Dianne Gallagher contributed to this report.


USA Today
41 minutes ago
- USA Today
How will Trump's immigration crackdown in California impact the economy?
How will Trump's immigration crackdown in California impact the economy? Show Caption Hide Caption National Guard major general clarifies military's role in Los Angeles National Guard Major General Scott Sherman outlined the role of military personnel in Los Angeles and said troops will not conduct arrests. President Donald Trump's administration is stepping up deportation efforts in California with immigration raids at restaurants, traffic stops and routine legal check-ins. The immigration crackdown, while popular with voters in polls, has sparked protests in Los Angeles. Long term, economists warn that fewer immigrants could take a hit to the economy, prompting labor shortages and slowing economic growth. "Immigrants play a huge role in the California economy,' said Giovanni Peri, an economics professor at the University of California, Davis. Without immigrants, 'there will be less economic growth. Less opportunity, also, for local companies and American workers.' 'Wave of panic': Businesses are in crosshairs of Trump immigration crackdown Why the U.S. is 'immigrant dependent' The country's economy has become 'very immigrant dependent,' according to Christopher Thornberg, founding partner at Beacon Economics, a Los Angeles research and consulting firm. About 479,000 U.S.-born workers were added to the labor force over the last five years compared with 3.6 million foreign-born workers, according to an October report from the National Foundation for American Policy, a nonpartisan research organization. The report pointed to a spike in immigration and retirements, coupled with a slowdown in U.S.-born working-age population growth. In California, immigrants make up roughly one-third of workers and comprise an outsized share of the workforce in physically intensive sectors like construction and agriculture. Critics say these workers are lowering wages for American-born citizens or taking away jobs. But Peri said that doesn't pan out in the data. Immigrants may reduce wages for native-born Americans with competing skills, according to Harvard economics professor George Borjas, but it slightly increases the income of native-born citizens overall. A separate 2024 working paper co-authored by Peri found immigrants had no significant effect on wages for those born in the U.S. who are college educated and a positive effect on wages for their American-born peers who are less educated. Instead, Peri said immigrants are filling the holes in industries struggling to hire. Immigrants account for 28% of care workers in long-term care settings, according to the nonprofit health policy organization KFF. In California, immigrants make up 44% of manufacturing jobs and 40% of construction jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank based in Washington D.C. Some of those jobs are held by undocumented workers. About 1.8 million people, or 17% of immigrants in California, were undocumented as of 2022, according to Pew. The vast majority – 1.4 million – had no legal protections through programs like Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or active asylum claims. "It would be lovely to deal with this with an expansion of the legal immigration system,' Peri said. 'But lacking that, undocumented immigrants are doing a lot of these jobs. And losing some of them would make the situation worse.' Pushing away immigrants, Peri argues, prevents companies from growing and creating more jobs that would benefit U.S.-born workers. One 2024 analysis from Jamshid Damooei, executive director of the Center for Economics of Social Issues at California Lutheran University, found work from undocumented employees created an additional 1.25 million jobs in California. And because the vast majority of undocumented immigrants are not criminals, but people who have been part of their local communities for years if not decades, 'in the majority of cases, the effects of just indiscriminately deporting these people is going to have very little benefit for the American people,' Peri said. Revenue vs. cost It's true that immigrants add costs for the government; they benefit from public education, health services and other state-specific policies. But research generally finds immigration tends to raise the federal government's revenue more than its costs, with immigrants adding an estimated $1.2 trillion in federal revenues between 2024 and 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office. State and local governments' costs tend to increase more than their revenues from a surge in immigration, but Peri said the rise in immigration is a net benefit overall. Even undocumented workers, Peri argued, boost the government's coffers because they pay a considerable amount of taxes. At the same time, they are ineligible for most federal benefits like Social Security and food stamps. Undocumented immigrants contributed $8.5 billion in state and local taxes in 2022, according to a 2024 study from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a nonpartisan think tank. Trump and Newsom: Trump's battle with Newsom, California expands beyond immigration What happens if the immigration crackdown continues? Thornberg doesn't expect Trump to deport every undocumented worker in the country, and views the crackdown in California as 'more of a blown-up spectacle' that 'may get tied up in the courts.' Already, Trump has said he would back off certain deportation efforts to avoid labor shortages in areas like agriculture and hospitality. 'Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace,' Trump said in a June 12 post on Truth Social. 'Changes are coming!' While an immediate labor shortage is unlikely, Thornberg believes we're more likely to see people discouraged from coming to the U.S. in the years to come, resulting in a tighter labor market. That could mean higher wages for workers as companies step up recruitment efforts, but it would slow economic growth overall. Trump's efforts to constrain immigration during his first term played out in a similar fashion; by 2019, the unemployment rate had dropped to 3.5%, its lowest level since 1969, with earnings up 3.5% from 2018. Meanwhile, economic growth slowed to 2.3%, down from 2.9% the year prior, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Peri said a tight labor market could have ripple effects across the economy, such as driving up the cost to produce certain items. Companies may be more inclined to import cheaper goods at a time when the Trump administration is pushing for more U.S. manufacturing through tariffs. 'This could have a cascade of effects,' he said. 'There is no doubt at all that immigration and immigrants who do those simple, manual jobs are very important at making the economy go.'