Rhetorical Analysis

David Langley begins his argument by describing the vigorous events that occur throughout a skateboarder’s average day. The purpose of the argument is well established, as it greatly explains the repetitive unfair treatment amongst skateboarders. Langley states, “That the laws that regulate skateboarding in public places are highly restrictive, ambiguous, and open to abusive application by police officers “(151). If a police officer decided that skateboarding in a crowded area could be dangerous to the public, they could stop skateboarding in the area. An officer in the Seattle East Precinct in Washington explained that if he saw a skater perform dangerous acts with people around, he would definitely arrest the skater, and even if there were no people around, there is a chance he may arrest the skater anyways (151). Langley effectively displays one case of unfair behavior that skateboarders deal with on a regular basis. He gives the audience a real life situation, allowing the audience to gain a respectable viewpoint of a skater.

The ethos appeal of the argument is terrifically displayed, because Langley responds to the different perspectives fairly. Langley constantly clarifies how skaters have been forced out of known skate spots in the city by storeowners and police, kicked out of every parking garage in downtown…and herded into crowded skateboard parks (151). Although these skate parks are a positive, secured environment, many of the parks seem to be too small for the amount of skaters in an area. Langley successfully justifies that attempts to control skateboarding with skate parks have failed on numerous occasions. For example, a skate park in Issaquah, Washington, hosts about thirty to fifty skaters at a time. Collisions are frequent and close calls, many. There are simply too many people in a small area (151). Langley does an excellent job of reasonably countering the attempts to regulate skateboarding.