I think McKinney should be arrested

[rpgamerd00d]

She committed a crime.

No one is above the law.

If you assault anyone (especially a cop), you should be arrested.

For Democrats, here or in Congress, to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

Period.

[Hubert Flottz]

1. The pResident and all his cronies are above the law!

So why not everybody?

[mondo joe]

7. Is that our new rallying cry?

For all these years Dems have been saying no one is above the law.

It'll take me time to get used to saying the reverse.

[Hubert Flottz]

19. They(the GOP) said that, "everything changed after 9/11"...

I guess the terrorists really did win. We are a lawless banana republic and the people running our country are lawless people. Russ tried to fix it but there wasn't another patriot in Washington in EITHER party who joined him yesterday in condemning the lawlessness!

[mondo joe]

25. Yes, they did. I'm asking you what your position is, and what you

think the dem position should be - does the law apply to everyone or not?

[Hubert Flottz]

40. I guess it only applies to democrats now.

Republicans can break every law on the books and get away with it.

[mondo joe]

47. I'm sorry but you seem to be avoiding my questions.

Do you think the law should apply to everyone?

Do you think the dem position should be that the law applies to everyone?

[Hubert Flottz]

68. I don't know WHAT TO THINK Anymore... You tell me!

When the people running this country, can get away with doing things(crimes)that our government hung Nazis for doing, in 1946, then I can only conclude, that, WE ARE IN FACT, NO LONGER A NATION OF LAWS!

What I believe is beside the point. It really only matters to me what I believe, I believe!

The example our "leaders" are setting now, are nothing like what I ever saw prior to Bushism. The SCOTUS was the first to show contempt for the laws of this nation, when they ruled in favor of partisan politics and stopped our votes from being counted in 2000. From there the country has descended into chaotic, legal limbo. Cronylegalism! Kangaroo Justice!

Read 'The Betrayal Of America' and tell me if we are a "nation of laws," where EVERYONE is subject to the laws of the land, or if we are a nation that just makes up the new crony serving laws, from day to day, as the king and his court, may deem are to their best advantage, at that particular time, or happenstance. COVER YOUR ASS COURT?

NO THIS IS NOT NORMAL AMERICA, ANYMORE!

EDIT...The congresswoman, CLEARLY needed, some of the type of "LEGAL FLEXABILITY" that Bush has DEMANDED, time after time...in order to fight terrorism!

[mondo joe]

76. I still expect you to have your own position on whether the law

should apply to everyone or not.

What you believe does, in fact, matter.

If we Dems now say the law doesn't apply to everyone, we should immediately give up on Plamegate and domestic spying and an illegal war, because by our own admission the law doesn't matter.

I expect you and others to maintain that the law does matter and should be applied to everyone.

Your call.

[Hubert Flottz]

87. I guess if she doesn't get 10 years hard labor, I'll just have to...

vote for Ralph Nader next time. That's my opinion, for WETF it's worth. We live in a lawless nation now. The sooner you admit it to yourself, the better off we will ALL be! Answer your own questions, I do! It works for me!

Mondo Joe, I don't think you and I will EVER be on the same page, even though we MAY, be members of the same political party.

EDIT...OVER AND OUT!

[mondo joe]

90. If you're not willing to state the law should apply to us all, then no,

we probably won't ever be on the same page.

[Hubert Flottz]

93. What is and what should be, are not the same thing.

Later on!

[mondo joe]

96. I didn't ask you what IS. I asked you what should be, and what you

are willing to fight for.

If you're not willing to fight for that, as you say, we will never be on the same page.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

249. To which law are you referring? McKinney was wearing her....

...Congressional ID...what else did she need to do? How would you have reacted if you had been grabbed from behind by anyone?

What if you received death threats on a regular basis...would that add to your concern about being grabbed from behind?

And take a look at who originally gave this story to the press...a GOP staffer. Does that not make you wonder about the veracity of this story?

[mondo joe]

251. Which law? How about assaulting an officer?

How would I have reacted if someone grabbed by arm after asking me to stop at a security check?

Not by hitting them.

I don't dispute the story was leaked by someone less than trustworthy - but given that the story has been corroborated I have no choice but to accept that there was a dispute as described. If the officer of McKinney wants to make a case of it they are within their rights to do so.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

259. How about she didn't know WHO was grabbing her....

...from behind by the arm?

Would you have known who was grabbing you from behind by the arm?

How would you have reacted, particularly if you knew you were being threatened on an almost daily basis by people who sound serious about what they want to do to you?

The story was corroborated by whom? What started the dispute?

Was McKinney wearing her Congressional ID, and why is that suddenly less noticable that a lapel pin that is roughly 1" in diameter? She claimed that she was wearing her Congressional ID...why was that missed?

How is it that the Security Guard failed to recognize one of only fourteen black female Members of Congress?

[mondo joe]

263. That would be a matter to be decided in court.

I've already answered your questions - if I were passing a security check and someone grabbed my arm from behind I'd stop.

If I were concerned because of daily threats I'd be even MORE mindful of the security - not less so.

If he didn't recognize her, or failed to get a good look at her face or the ID he was acting appropriately to stop her. All she had to do was stop for 5 seconds.

I don't support the "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude. When you pass through a security check, be mindful of it and act appropriately.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

265. Members of Congress and Congressional Staffers are hardly...

...ever stopped for any reason while going around security checks. They are NOT required to go through metal detectors ar any other security checkpoint.

She has 2 or 3 bodyguards around her at all times...that's a measure of how much she trusts the security apparatus on the Congressional grounds. IMHO, the security guard is lucky that McKinney turned around and struck him before her body guards got to him.

There are fourteen black female Members of Congress...how difficult is it to learn who they are and how to recognize them on sight?

If you don't support the "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude, why do you appear to be supporting the so-called original story as reported by the media?

[Cha]

250. ROFLMFAO!

Call me crazy but I follow what you're sayin'.

bush can break the LAW throughout the monkey sham squatter period in D.C. and the media and the dems, and the repukes say.."How can we assist you, monkeyass?"

But, a Dem Congresswoman.. That's another Fucking Story!! :grr:

[misternormal]

91. No One is above the law...

[xultar]

2. ...

:popcorn:

[Hubert Flottz]

4. Give me a bite...

And here :beer:

[bemildred]

10. With butter, and salt ...

:popcorn:

[philosophie_en_rose]

3. April fools???

???

[rpgamerd00d]

5. No.

Its complete hypocracy to say a Dem can assault someone and not get arrested.

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. But it's still okay to order an illegal invasion

and kill 1000's of innocents?

[mondo joe]

12. Who here said that was okay? To the contrary, Dems have

been arguing for years that the law should apply to EVERYONE.

[driver8]

167. mondo joe, you are absolutely right.

The law either applies to everyone or it doesn't.

Just because the rethuglicans think they can do anything they want and get away with it, does not mean that we should sink to their level.

We are better than that.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

256. Okay...what exactly is the law here?.....

1. McKinney was wearing her Congressional ID, even if she wasn't wearing her lapel pin. Doesn't that count as obeying the law as it applies to Members of Congress and Congressional Staffers?

2. How about the security officer that grabbed McKinney's arm from behind? Was that okay, or are their laws that apply to that kind of behavior?

To what level is anyone on DU sinking?

If it's the level on which we don't take the word of a GOP staffer as the truth, then I guess I'm on that level.

If it's the level where people question the rough treatment of one of fourteen black female Members of Congress, then I guess I'm on that level, too.

If it's the level where people question the actions of the GOP-controlled media when they report stories without all of the facts, then I guess I'm on that level, too.

Yes, we are better than those that would treat people unfairly, that would start wars for no discernible reason, and would make obscene profits at the expense of the other 99% of the population.

I could go on, but IMHO, the McKinney non-story is not where we should all be focusing our energy.

[driver8]

264. Little touchy today, aren't we??

I don't think I mentioned McKinney in my post at all, did I? I also don't think I mentioned DU as sinking.

I was referring to Dems as a group vs. Republicans as a group -- the rethugs seem to believe that the laws don't apply to them. That is what I meant.

You are preaching to the choir here...don't read into things that aren't written. I agree 100% with your statement that "we are better than those that would treat people unfairly, that would start wars for no discernible reason, and would make obscene profits at the expense of the other 99% of the population." It makes me sick to think about what these criminals have done to our military, our country, and to the citizens of Iraq.

Prison is too good for these m-fers.

[Hutzpa]

62. Whooops.........'the wolf in a sheep clothen' n/t

:hide:

[goclark]

113. Seems that that's still OK ~ Do you ever wonder @

what FR's are saying about this twin thread?

[philosophie_en_rose]

97. You're pretty quick to call for lynch-mob.

I don't think anyone is above the law, but it's an overreaction to call for arrests and jail terms.

I'd like to understand where you're getting your information. Is there a video that I'm missing or are you taking Drudge for real journalism?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

246. It's even more hypocritical to claim McKinney was guilty of "assault"...

...just curious, but how would you react if you were grabbed from behind?

[Paulo_s News]

6. You make a reasonable point

Also, if she is arrested, then it will put the black congresswoman/white cop dispute into the mainstream. Bad for her, but a good debate for the media to have.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. From what I have read,

it sounds like she turned around when the cop grabbed her arm, had her cell phone in her hand and bumped into his chest. I haven't read anything which would lead me to believe she deliberately assaulted a cop.

Now we do have proof that el pretzeldente lied to the American public to take us to war. I say we push that arrest first then go after the piddly problems.

[fishwax]

175. that's how it seemed to me too

it's hard to tell what really happened, but your scenario seems as likely as anything. She also might have felt she was being attacked and struck out in self-defense.

The incident is still under investigation, according to the last report I saw, but plenty of people here seem to have all the facts ...

[ecstatic]

11. you take cop's word over McKinney's? interesting

I'm sure you would have at least waited for the facts and /or video had it been Kerry or some other white liberal male.

[SPKrazy]

28. See #26 n/t

[qanda]

13. I guess she's guilty because you say so.

So she doesn't even deserve the benefit of a trial before you confirm that she is guilty. This is some progressive website.

[SPKrazy]

26. Ummmm, Being Arrested Doesn't Equal Guilt

if the cop believes she broke the law, he/she should arrest Ms. McKinney, they'd arrest anyone else.

Otherwise, the police should STFU!

[qanda]

39. I'm going from what the OP said....

That she (McKinney) committed a crime.

[rpgamerd00d]

31. You need to learn how the law works.

1) Investigation
2) Arrest
3) Trial

Guilty or not Guilty is a result of the trial, not the arrest.

[qanda]

41. You're the one who said she committed a crime

So I really don't know why you're trying to give me a lesson in how the law works.

[rpgamerd00d]

42. When you commit a crime, step one is arrest.

That doesn't mean you're guilty. Please stop being snarky.

[qanda]

53. I'm certainly not being snarky

You're the one who told me that I don't know anything about the law. Have you ever heard a journalist say that anyone, not found guilty of something, had committed a crime? No. They say they are suspected of a crime or that they allegely committed a crime. Perhaps that's why so many are reacting negatively to your post because according to your original post, McKinney has already been found guilty.

[philosophie_en_rose]

135. Crim Law 101: The Police Aren't Above the Law Either.

You suggest that McKinney should just be arrested, just because someone suspects that she might have done something. However, arresting someone without reasonable belief in their guilt is inherently unjust, possibly leading to legal action against the police officer or department. Arrest should be based on investigation and verifiable facts, or some reason to hold a suspect. You're right that you don't have to convict someone prior to an arrest, but you sure as hell need to base that arrest on actual evidence. Even then, arrest is not necessarily mandated.

I would be disappointed if there wasn't some investigation, but there must be some basis besides innuendo for arrest. I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Also, you seem to be confusing the fact that many of us are giving Cynthia McKinney - a woman subject to a lot of racism and hatred - the benefit of the doubt with hypocrisy, based on some agenda of your own. The fact that we're waiting for proof before dismissing McKinney is not a sign of double standards. It's sign of respect.

Why isn't Bush arrested for far greater crimes? is a strong argument. It is not proof that Dems should not be held accountable, but is - instead - an indication that law enforcement/ the powers that be are politically motivated and that this alleged assault did not happen as reported on Fox News or Free Republic.

[fishwax]

181. guilt=you've committed the crime

When you say McKinney committed a crime, you've found her guilty. The investigation hasn't even determined whether a crime took place.

[rpgamerd00d]

193. Incorrect

A cop determines whether he believes a subject is guilty in order to make an arrest.
A court then determines actual guilt or innocence.

My statement is 100% correct. Evidence clearly shows she committed a crime and should be arrested.

[fishwax]

210. arrest does not mean you've committed a crime

(nor, of course, does admitting a crime mean you'll be arrested.)

The definition of guilty: adjudged to have committed a crime.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=guilty

[Media_Lies_Daily]

266. A cop makes an arrest when he finds a suspect that MAY be....

...guilty of a crime. He or she does not determine guilt in any way...that's why there is a procedure to determine whether or not the suspect is released for lack of evidence or brought before a judge for an arraignment on one or more charges.

At that point, a long process begins before the actual trial takes place. Evidence and eyewitnesses have to be found and questioned by the DA and the defense attorney. Following that, a jury determines guilt or innocence. That's quite a few steps away from the cop that made the original arrest of a suspect, isn't it?

Not all arrests result in a trial...most do not. Not all suspects are guilty.

Some suspects are not guilty but get convicted anyway. Thanks to DNA testing, quite a few cases are being reversed.

[Mz Pip]

14. I think both sides

are over the top on this. Assault charges for getting pushed in the chest is just silly. If this is the worst thing that has happened to this office he is a lucky man.

If someone grabbed me from behind, I'd probably react too, but upon seeing it was someone who really wasn't a threat a simple "Oops!" would defuse the situation. Both sides need to cool off.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[rpgamerd00d]

32. Excuse me, assault charges for shoving someone in the chest is...

... 100% appropriate. I'd have you arrested if you shoved me in the chest.

Don't say stupid things in defense of a Dem, just because she is a Dem.
It makes us look partisan and ignorant.

[Mz Pip]

46. It's a question of degree

If she was reacting to being grabbed and turned around and pushed back I would hardly call that "assault." Sounds more like a misunderatanding. If she hauled off and decked him after she saw who he was then I'd agree with you, so perhaps you should wait until all the facts come out before you start labeling people who question this partisan and ignorant.

Over reacting on both sides is just adding fuel to the fire. Seems it could have been handled a lot better no matter who is at fault.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[durrrty libby]

71. I agree Mz Pip

Over the top silliness

Nowadays bump into someone and they yell assault, and want to make a federal case out of it.

Tell someone’s kid to stop throwing rocks or to stop kicking a cat and the parents call the cops.

People are getting meaner, nastier, and just crazy.

[flyarm]

99. and if you were a woman and someone grabbed you from behind..

grabed your arm from behind..with all the socialization that has occured with women in recent ( 30 yrs) years..to protect oneself from any person grabbing your persons...would you have not turned around swinging??

i sure as hell would...and to say..well he said he was a cop..she was supposedly on her cell phone..if she was engaged in a conversation..it is ...assuming... she heard the cop...

assumptions are not law...

now add post 9/11 and i am sure Cynthia has been through security classes...my husband"s employers have taught this to men and women and we certainly have had many security classes..and the first thing taught is defend yourslef..( as a woman) ..do not go with anyone unless they have a gun in your face..fight to get away..and do it immediately..react to surprise the attacker...

and with my former employment we were taught the same..do not let anyone get in your physical space...another words if some stranger grabs you fight them off immediately...

stop them what ever means nessesary..

now i would have to believe every congressperson has had classes in security...
and i would believe if McKinney did not hear a capitol cop say anything to her..and she was grabed ( as reports have been) on the arm from behind..how the hell would she not re-act..remember the congress is post 9/11 as well..how would she know it wasn't a nut case grabbing at her?? or putting her in danger??

and further more..there were tapes of this,..and the tapes are being witheld..that speaks volumns!!

the op says no one is above the law..well our laws also say...innocent until "proven " guilty...seems to me many are convicting Cynthia ..without tapes..( tapes being witheld) and without full explainations and without an arrest...and without both sides being tried for any crime ...

i believe Cynthia is innocent..because .."that is what our laws say!"...innocent until "proven guilty" of a crime.

fly

[Mz Pip]

120. Of course I would

probably push back. But after I saw that I wasn't under some kind of attack I'd make an attempt to defuse the situation rather than escalate it.

Besides, this did not happen on some city street or a place where a woman would likely be attacked.

I don't think she's guilty, I don't think the cop is guilty, either. I think this is a misunderstanding that is blown way out of proportion by both sides.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[flyarm]

219. i agree wholeheartedly..thats my point...we were not there..

but we also do not know the 1. security training of congress people, 2. we do not know all the facts 3. we do not know Cynthias history 4. we do not know anything but what the media has told us and what little Cynthias attorney has stated ..and from what i heard from Cynthias own mouth..she will be exonerated..

4. i have not heard what the cop says..and none of us have seen the tape..nor cross examined either of the persons involved..so we know

nothing!

fly

[rpgamerd00d]

127. She already knew it was a cop. Therefore, your strawman is moot. -nt

[fishwax]

192. how do we know that?

I haven't seen that established in any of the articles, though I certainly haven't read them all ...

[rpgamerd00d]

194. Look below, at the *** post

[fishwax]

208. i don't see where that proves she knew it was a cop who had touched her

it says she reacted instinctively and defended herself. The image I've had in my mind is of her turning around when someone grabbed her arm and striking the person as part of that motion. So she may or may not have known it was a cop when she turned around, right?

[flyarm]

222. AND SHE ALREADY SHOWED HER CONGRESSIONAL I.D.

any part of that you are not getting??



snip from the article you posted...
In her statement, McKinney said most members of Congress expect Capitol police to recognize them. “I was urgently trying to get to an important meeting on time to fulfill my obligations to my constituents. Unfortunately, the police officer did not recognize me as a member of Congress and a confrontation ensued,” she said. “I did not have on my congressional pin but showed the police officer my congressional ID.”

and if the cop grabbed her..it seems to me he was the aggressor..and you know Cynthias security training how???


OHH AND THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS..MOVE ALONG ..NOTHING HERE...WE KNOW YOUR LOVE OF BEING DUPED AND " PLAYED" AS FOOLS..!!

Republicans circulated an e-mail noting that McKinney’s party the same day announced an election-year “affirmation” of their commitment to shoring up the nation’s security.

“On a day when the Democrats unveil their national security agenda, it’s probably not a good idea to allegedly strike a police officer,” said Ron Bonjean, spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.

‘Reckless behavior’
Hank Johnson, a DeKalb County, Ga., commissioner who is running against McKinney in this year’s Democratic primary, said voters “must hold Ms. McKinney accountable for her continued pattern of irresponsible and reckless behavior.

“For years, it’s the people of the Fourth District who have suffered and been shortchanged because of our representative’s behavior in Congress,” Johnson said. “It’s why she is ineffective in Congress.”

[tyedyeto]

15. Does the Constitution of the United States apply in this case?

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 6 ....

Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

[Wilber_Stool]

34. Exactly

I'm surprised that it took 15 responses for this to come up.

[rpgamerd00d]

38. Doesnt apply.

That only matters to/from a session.

[SPKrazy]

43. Wasn't She Going To A Session?

and she wasn't arrested

[tyedyeto]

45. Isn't that what she was doing?

Going into the Capital Building isn't going to a session?

[rpgamerd00d]

51. Here is how that law works.

If she is on her way to or from a session, and commits a crime, she cannot be arrested *at that time* for that crime.

She can, however, be arrested at a later date for that crime.

[flyarm]

103. our law also says..innocent until "proven guilty" of a crime!

seems to me she is being tried and found guilty without an arrest or trial..

or the tapes that have been witheld!

we do not cherry pick the laws we want to hold someone to ..

we do not accuse people of having broken a law without a trial..that is our laws..

fly

[mondo joe]

112. I never saw the OP say she is a criminal.

But we DO accuse people of having broken the law without trial - otherwise there'd be no trial.

[flyarm]

223. here...this is it..in case you missed it..

op thread..

I think McKinney should be arrested
She committed a crime.

No one is above the law.



saying she committed a crime with no arrest and no charges brought..i would say that is saying she is a criminal saying she committed a crime..

people that commit a crime are criminals...

fly

[bemildred]

52. Are you nuts? nt

[mdmc]

16. I think that she should be president

:patriot:

[bemildred]

22. Fuckin' A

Someone honest would be so refreshing.
:thumbsup:

[cali]

17. I'm dumbfounded that anyone would

take this position without knowing all the facts. It isn't clear cut that she assaulted him. It's entirely possible that she simply reacted to having her arm grabbed. What is it that makes you so convinced she's guilty of assault?

[fed-up]

18. Wait for the facts/video before you pass judgement- n/t

[rpgamerd00d]

20. Guys, listen

1) She admitted there was "an incident" and she apologized for her actions. I am not taking anyones word for it other than her own.
2) Whether she is immune to arrest going to/from a session is irrelevent. She still struck someone, which is assault. The arrest should occur, and a court should determine if she should be punished or if she is exempt via her Congressional authority.

Period.

[mdmc]

27. much bigger crimes in the world , imho

I can think of many others that deserve arrest before McKinney. What if she just lightly touched the cop? I mean, she ain't that girl in Kill Bill. :)

[rpgamerd00d]

29. Gimme a break. She hit him. That is assault. -nt

[asjr]

63. Were you there when it happened? If so give

us a blow by blow description.

[rpgamerd00d]

66. She admitted it herself. Get over it. -nt

[stillcool]

Good Advice....Get over it...

go find someone else to crucify....

[Media_Lies_Daily]

261. Yes, she admitted she had her Congressional ID, and reacted....

...forcefully when grabbed from behind.

IMHO, she showed a lot of restraint by not having the officer charged with assault.

"Get over it"?? Hmmm. That sounds like something I've heard in the past.

[mdmc]

69. Once, in the hood, a bum came up to me and asked if I had any

spare change. I said, "Sorry. I don't." The bum pointed two fingers at me, and poked me in the chest. He replied, "Yo. Don't be SORRY." He stood there for a couple of seconds, then walked away.

Technically, he assaulted me. If I was an off duty cop, I could have arrested him. He didn't have the right to do that to me (poking me in the chest).

You should never hit a cop, even if your a congressperson. That being said, I do not think that her motivation was to injure the cop.

I think this should slide.

[Catrina]

83. How do you know she struck someone? She 'allegedly' struck someone

would be more accurate. And why hasn't she already been arrested? The same cops arrested Cindy right away for wearing a teeshirt.

[flyarm]

108. anwer to your 1. & 2.

1) She admitted there was "an incident" and she apologized for her actions. I am not taking anyones word for it other than her own.


acknowledging there was an incident is not acknoledging there was a crime committed...she also said she would be vindicated..so do you only cherry pick what she said?

2) Whether she is immune to arrest going to/from a session is irrelevent. She still struck someone, which is assault. The arrest should occur, and a court should determine if she should be punished or if she is exempt via her Congressional authority.

it was also said she was grabbed on her arm from behind....so it was a cop..any woman i know that would be grabbed from behind would react the same way...i sure as hell would if anyone grabbed me from behind..they would get the shit kicked out of them..with everything i have!

you do not know if the cop assulted her from behind nor do I..the tapes have been witheld...

you are convicting this woman without an arrest or trail..that is against the so called U.S. laws you are throwing around!

Cynthia has the right to be innocent until proven guilty..did you simply "forget" that law??


yes dear she is innocent..

under our laws..period
fly

[Orsino]

21. I think she will be arrested...

...the minute Capitol police think the "scuffle" justifies an arrest. Reading between the lines, I think it sounds like a momentary misunderstanding. That they haven't yet charged her with even a misdemeanor hints that the tale of what really happened in't very clear.

[bigtree]

23. She's not a threat to anyone, she's a legislator

These cops should recognize that and settle this without charges. Besides, I think it's wrong for you to claim that she committed a crime from what you have read or heard. Even the most ardent proponents of the 'law' would only allege that she committed a crime at this point, unless you happened to witness the event. If she is charged, she will have a chance to challenge the accusations in court. Assault has varying degrees and intent should be a large part of the consideration.

[goclark]

44. Big Tree ~ she is a BIG threat to a LOT of people

I can't believe that any police person that had been on the job more than two days didn't know her!

She doesn't blend in with the DeLay shirt crowd at all.

Let's face it, we would not be having this discussion if she was not a BIG threat to their policies.


Recall that our VICE PRESIDENT shot a man! The Secret Services,sworn to protect the law, let it slide for 24 hours! Cheney let it slide for 24 hours and we have yet to have a real investigation.

[bigtree]

61. gotcha

still, she's a nice lady. I won't accept that they can't go to her, treat her with respect, and settle this.

[goclark]

144. Of course they could big tree, but then

they wouldn't be able to start all the threads that put our racial bias on the computer.

They know exactly what they are doing and "some" not you, are falling right into the FR's hands.

[Kingshakabobo]

24. Seen the evidence have you? Can you share? Or just spouting out your ass?

[SPKrazy]

30. See # 26 n/t

[Kingshakabobo]

55. See the OP....Hint: " >She committed a crime.

What part of "She committed a crime." don't you understand?

[SPKrazy]

64. I understand that just fine

arrest her, try her, convict her

or the police should Shut the Fuck up!

that's how the American Justice System works

just because he said she committed a crime, doesn't mean she did

but if the police say she did, they should arrest her

[Kingshakabobo]

72. I have the feeling the cops were going to drop this. I have the feeling

the repugs are pulling strings and crying foul to the police commanders.

I have a feeling we would be screaming bloody murder if this was a repug that pushed/shoved/punched a cop. I've heard the Tom Delay "I am the government" quote here several times.

Of course, those are just "feelings" and I could be talking out my ass.

This situations only reminds me how much I dislike "privileged" politicians in general. Don't get me wrong, I f--king HATE republicans.

[goclark]

33. Has she been to Court yet or did I miss something? nt

[rpgamerd00d]

35. Arrests happen first, court second. -nt

[goclark]

48. I am aware of that but I keep reading

between the lines that some are SURE they know exactly what happened.

[mondo joe]

59. Hasn't she admitted to hitting the officer? I know her attorneys have

put forth two responses - one that she was justified in doing so, and another that she didn't hit him hard enough to fairly be considered assault.

So it sounds to me like an admission.

If so, then the next stop is court, which might side with her or him.

[flyarm]

117. and neither have occured..so why have you convicted her already??n/t

[Dunvegan]

36. I hate to see the confrontation excalate, but that's what courts

...are *supposed* to be for: getting to the truth. I'd like to see this entire charlie-foxtrot cleared up in a courtroom, and McK cleared once-and-for-all, if she should be cleared.

I'm a woman who's been mugged on the street at night and successfully fought off my attackers, ONLY because I reacted immediately and aggressively (in that particular incident, it worked.)

I tell everyone in the household, if you come into the kitchen...speak before you enter. I have my instincts on a pretty fine hair-trigger, and I react to any unknown entity that steps into my space.

Known entities diffuse the situation utterly.

[flyarm]

137. i am with you on that!! i had a guy come into my home..and i beat

the shit out of him because i reacted the way i had been taught by security people...

i reacted very fast and explosive with the perp..i had a gun available in close range..but i did not use it..i just beat the guy up..because i reacted so fast he didn't know what hit him...i got him out of my home..because i went nuts beating him up..

and i also warn anyone around me..do not come into the house without yelling out..immediately...

do not come upon me in a surprise..

or you will pay the consequences..

one time my husband came home from a business trip late at night..i always keep a long knife where i can access easily..

well my husband did not call to tell me he was home early..i heard the front door knob being messed with..and i climbed on a chair in the entry way with the long knife..when he got the door open i came down full force on him with the knife..

thank god i did not hurt him ..other than bruises ..and a sore ego on his part...that i totally knocked him down..and had the knife to his neck..

he never does that to me ..never...he calls now at all times!

remember folks many women today have been trained to protect themselves..and many women have now been socialized to protect themselves...

we know today..react first ..ask questions later...we have been told for a generation or more..what our private space is..and to protect it..

maybe men do not understand that..but just ask a woman who has been put into a what she feels is a dangerous position..she will react..and react fast and explosively...

its in the instincts..we have been taught through socialization to listen to our inner warning signs...


now... we can not socialize women to react that way and then blame them for a crime when they do what we have been socialized to do..

no one should come upon a woman ..or man from behind ..and grab them without expecting a reaction..

fly

[xchrom]

37. we pick and choose how laws are administered and who is arrested

all the time.

therefore your thread is disingenous.

[acmavm]

50. We do? How? And who is we? And is it administered fairly? And is

this a valid excuse?

[xchrom]

54. your first two questions are silly --

police officers can and often do let people off when making infractions.

police officers, judges, lawmakers etc -- act for ''we'' and you know it.

you make your own mind up if it's a valid excuse.

but don't claim it's never done.

and pleasse note -- technically she is immune from the kind of arrest your talking about anyway
i can't imagine :eyes: why you didn't put that in your post.

[acmavm]

60. What kind of arrest was I talking about? And no one is immune from

the law. Isn't that what we are ALWAYS saying in regard to the bush** administration and the neo-cons?

I didn't say she was guilty. Let her have her day in court to prove that she's not.

And that "police officers can and often do let people off when making infractions" is a really pitiful argument. Police officers are only to let people go if there's not enough 'reason' to arrest and charge anyone. That's the way it's supposed to be anyway.

I have no side in this argument. In fact, I think it's funny. She whacked a police officer for grabbing her arm. He says he didn't know who she was and she didn't wear her identification (something that supposedly a known fact).

Let her go to court. I mean, if a republican did it everyone here would be having shit fits if he wasn't lined up against a wall and shot.

[xchrom]

67. ...

Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
thanks tyedyeto for that.

life rarely works the way you or anybody elese thinks it is supposed to work -- ten year olds say that kind of crap -- everybody else figures out life is full of variables.


you don't speak for every one here and whether they would be having shit fits about this.

[rpgamerd00d]

70. Again, that means to, from and during. Doesn't apply afterwards.

She couldn't be arrested at the time, nor as she exited the session. But today, for example, she could be.
That's all that law means.

[xchrom]

75. wow -- then you really want her arrested.

but like i've pointed -- there are variables at work all the damn time.

and they are work this time -- or they would have arrested her -- a whole what? approaching 30 hours 36 hours after the fact?

whatever the facts may be.

[tyedyeto]

80. Um...where is your law degree from

that you can interpret the Constitution so accurately?

That section also states, a Congressperson may only be questioned at the Capital Building. So, when your fantasy comes true and she's arrested, she stays in the building for any and all questioning.

[rpgamerd00d]

82. Read this

1) The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States.
- Not relevent

2) They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same;
- Note the semicolon, separation of context. This is the only passage that applies to the incident

3) and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
- Not relevent

[acmavm]

77. Apparently you missed this reply...

If she is on her way to or from a session, and commits a crime, she cannot be arrested *at that time* for that crime.

She can, however, be arrested at a later date for that crime.

************************************************************************
I agree, I don't speak for everyone here. But I do recognize the fact that we scream and yell about 'right' and 'fair' but only apparently mean it when it applies to 'the other side'.

I believe that someone else posted that a decision on right or wrong doesn't stem from an arrest, it stems from the outcome (or verdict) of a trial. If the cop is a liar, she'll have witnesses to who will be able to verify her side of the story.

[flyarm]

145. and we have not heard her full side of the story , nor the cops...n/t

[xchrom]

218. hello? read my statements -- i did address it.

you want to address someone 30, 36, 48 hours after an incident like that -- then you have problems, imho.

and don't speak for me regarding an incident like this and what my reaction would be were it the ''other side'' -- speak for your self.

[Ian David]

49. I think we need to have an investigation...

and that it should proceed at the same pace as the investigation into the fixing of pre-war intelligence.

We'll show them our Phase II when they show us theirs.

Fair 'nuff.

[movonne]

56. April fool !!!

[rpgamerd00d]

57. No, Im serious.

[movonne]

131. No I was talking about you...

[rpgamerd00d]

58. Look, folks, this is very simple.

She is on tape, there were lots of witnesses.

The reason she hasn't been arrested yet is because they are considering the political ramifications of doing it.

The best thing for the Dems is for her to be arrested as she should be. I am confident she could beat the charge, or work out a plea if she can't.

If they decide to let it drop, it will be a huge political issue for the Repubs to harp on.

[bigtree]

78. you have anything to back this up?

this sounds like a railroading of the congresswoman into something she may not be guilty of. Just because they present a video that they say supports their version doesn't make her guilty of anything. Charges have to be proven in court. I'm certain that fact has the most to do with whether she is arrested. charges have to be supported by evidence. If they think they have it they should charge her. If not, they should go to her office and talk it out like adults.

Besides, the police say today they won't release the video. Sounds like a typical police CYA move.

And hey, you're all over the place here. Arrest her because you think she could beat the charge?

The last sentence doesn't make sense at all.

[rpgamerd00d]

81. There is a difference between evidence sufficient for arrest, and...

... evidence sufficient for conviction.

A very large difference.

[bigtree]

92. If they think they have it they will arrest her

If they don't they won't.

Calling for her arrest here is wrong. Here are your facts supporting your call for her arrest:

[rpgamerd00d]

94. Incorrect. Here are my facts:

She admitted to hitting the cop.

[bigtree]

132. you haven't shown that with the reports you have provided.

[rpgamerd00d]

133. Yes I have

[bigtree]

138. where?

[philosophie_en_rose]

141. if a conviction isn't going to happen, then the difference is irrelevant.

:eyes:

Law enforcement officers don't have to enough evidence to convict when they make arrests, but they have to have a good faith belief that a crime - under the law (meaning not a moral 'crime' or bad behavior) occurred.

If they know that the elements of a crime will not be satisfied by the facts (especially state of mind requirements), then they ought not waste the taxpayer's money on an arrest for no purpose. It is against public policy (among other things) to arrest without purpose.

Your posts seem to indicate that McKinney should be arrested as a punitive response. However, that is not the purpose of arresting suspects.

[blondeatlast]

85. YOU'VE SEEN THE TAPE?! DO TELL!

I'm no McKinney apologist--just search my posts on the matter, but give me a break--d00d.

[rpgamerd00d]

88. For the 4th time, she admitted she hit the cop. -nt

[bigtree]

95. that's bull

[mondo joe]

98. No, she did admit it.

[bigtree]

102. what she admitted doesn't necessarily constitute a crime

intent plays a role

Did she know she was striking an officer? Can they prove that?

Just stating that she struck the officer doesn't constitute a crime in this case.

[mondo joe]

105. That's a court determination.

I didn't say she committed a crime.

The sequence is as follows:

Officer observees what he or she believes to be a crime.
Arrest.
Court and determination.

[bigtree]

111. but he didn't arrest her

why should we be second guessing that here, now?

[mondo joe]

118. No - arrest is pending, and is in fact the question.

I personally think they'll drop it and won't arrest her.

But in any event, no one has said she's a criminal - just that she did hit him, by her own admission.

[bigtree]

129. I don't think you can find a statement where she says she hit him

All of the news reports are careful to say alleged striking, or allegedly hit the officer.

[fishwax]

213. no one has said she's a criminal?

The first words of this thread (after the subject line) were: "She committed a crime."

[rpgamerd00d]

107. Yes, they can prove she knew it was a cop, by her own admission, here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12070031/

In her statement, McKinney said most members of Congress expect Capitol police to recognize them. “I was urgently trying to get to an important meeting on time to fulfill my obligations to my constituents. Unfortunately, the police officer did not recognize me as a member of Congress and a confrontation ensued,” she said. “I did not have on my congressional pin but showed the police officer my congressional ID.”

[bigtree]

109. that's not related to the actual incident

that happened beforehand. She reportedly had her back turned and was walking when he grabbed her from behind.

[rpgamerd00d]

114. It proves 100% she knew it was a cop. -nt

[bigtree]

126. it doesn't prove she knew he was the one grabbing her before she turned

that's when the alleged striking took place.

[rpgamerd00d]

128. Yes it does.

[rpgamerd00d]

101. Proof right here:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/31/mckinney.police/

During the conference, held at historically black Howard University in Washington, civil rights attorney James Myart said his client was "assaulted" by a Capitol Police officer, whose name the department refuses to release.

"Because she was assaulted and placed in impending fear of her safety, she responded," he said. "This case has just begun and we're going to fight, and we're going to use the U.S. Constitution."

[bigtree]

here?

"She had little else to say, citing the ongoing investigation into her allegedly striking a police officer after he failed to recognize her at a security checkpoint and tried to stop her from passing."

[bigtree]

106. or here?

"McKinney's other attorney, Michael Raffauf, downplayed the possibility of pressing charges against the officer, saying, "Not every assault deserves to be criminally prosecuted."

[philosophie_en_rose]

148. SHE DID NO SUCH THING.

She says that a confrontation happened and that she's sorry about it. I don't see that she's pleading guilty to assault, let alone verifying anything printed in the freepers rags.




Statement of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney
on Capitol Hill Incident

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ga04_mckinney/incidentstmt.html

March 29, 2006

(Washington, DC) - To the Members of the Capitol Hill Police:

Earlier today I had an unfortunate confrontation with a Capitol Hill Police Officer. It is traditional protocol that Capitol Hill Police Officers secure 535 Members of Congress, including 100 Senators. It is the expectation of most Members of Congress that Capitol Hill Police officers know who they are. I was urgently trying to get to an important meeting on time to fulfill my obligations to my constituents. Unfortunately, the Police Officer did not recognize me as a Member of Congress and a confrontation ensued. I did not have on my Congressional pin but showed the Police Officer my Congressional ID.

I know that Capitol Hill Police are securing our safety, that of
thousands of others, and I appreciate the work that they do. I deeply regret that the incident occurred. I have demonstrated my support for them in the past and I continue to support them now.

[rpgamerd00d]

151. Yes she did. Read below. -nt

[flyarm]

149. the only thing i see as simple is ..you disregard the laws!,,she is

innocent ..as per our US laws...

until "proven guilty"

fly

[rpgamerd00d]

160. Then you agree with me. She should be arrested and tried.

That is what you just said.

Quote:
"innocent ..as per our US laws... until proven guilty in a court of law"

Right?

[flyarm]

225. no i do not agree with you..you said Cynthia committed a crime and should

should be arrested in your opening thread..you do not know now if she did or did not commit a crime...so you are in essence calling her a criminal..and she is not

under our laws she did not committ a crime as you state ..unless arrested and tried and found guilty in a court of law..unless you abide by * doctrine of guilty until proven innocent..or just no trial at all..

she did not commit a crime as you state ..you do not have all the facts ..nor does anyone but Cynthia and the cop and possibly witnesses, and the tape , and those involved in this .. respective attorneys...

since i do not believe you were there or involved i would ask you how you are so knowledgeable Cynthia committed a crime as you have stated?
you state is as fact..and you could not be more wrong..

how do you know the cop did not commit assault oc Cynthia..of an innocent victim?

just because someone knows another is a cop does not give the cop a free pass on assault.

fly

[Hutzpa]

65. Whooops.......'The Wolf in a Sheep Clothen'

:hide:

[tatertop]

73. You better make a citizen's arrest! Arrest that bad bad person!

Yours is perhaps the stupidest post I have seen at DU.

[dave123williams]

74. Here's a clue - you don't know what happened.

[rpgamerd00d]

79. Here's a clue - neither do you. Here is another one.

She admitted she hit him.

Here is another one. People get arrested for that.

[flyarm]

156. and women who get grabbed from behind defend themselves ..

sometimes very quickly and with an explosive reaction..depends on their adrenilin...and their history..


i could admit to hitting someone as well.. that does not make one guilty of assault..

if grabbed from behind..

in an act to protect oneself!

grabbing someone from behind can also be considered assault!

end of story!

your simple ..simply does not fly...

fly

[rpgamerd00d]

173. He identified himself. She has no legal basis for assault.

[flyarm]

228. just because a cop identifies himself does not give him the right

to grab her or assault her!

if any man grabs me including a cop..that is assault of my person...

just because someone has a uniform on does not give him the right to touch her unless he is reading her her rights!

especially when she showed him her congressional I.d..from your linked story!!



fly

[mondo joe]

253. Indeed. Maybe this should just go to court so it can be settled.

[rpgamerd00d]

84. THIS BLIND FAITH IN SOMEONE WITH A (D) IS DAMAGING TO THE PARTY

This is exactly the problem with the Repugs.

Knock it off and be objective.

[bemildred]

86. No sense of irony at all, I take it? nt

[Rex]

164. LOL

You are sooo entertaining!

:popcorn:

Now knock it off and be objective! :eyes:

[flyarm]

166. and condemning someone without all the facts, without an arrest,

without a trail is unamerican!

and against our laws..

seems you want to change our laws...just like our dear president who wants no trials,..who wants to convict without proving anyone guilty of a crime...that sure is not the USA i grew up in nor what my constitution says!

what you are proposing is ..guilty without being proven guilty..

that is not the laws of my nation..at least not until *

fly

[rpgamerd00d]

170. Wrong again. I want her arrested since the evidence for arrest

is sufficient. Then I want a trial.

Apparently, you want to skip the arrest and trial and claim her innocent.

Who is unAmerican again?

Oh yeah, you.

[flyarm]

229. what proof do you have that she should be arrested??

proof..i say proof ..not news articles..not partisan media crap..what proof..did you see the tape??

where you there ?? are you a witness??

arrest for what??

what proof do you have of anything??

Cynthia's attorney said she reacted out of instincts...to being grabbed...since when do any cops have the right to grab anyone ..especially a congress person who showed her congressional I.d. in the Captiol... to that cop?????????????????

who came up behind her and grabbed her..

what right did he have to touch her body?? do you know if there are laws against that?? do you know if that is permitted??

do you know what security training Cynthia has had as a congress woman?? What her reactions would be under any circumstances to being grabbed by anyone??

didn't think so..

fly

[im10ashus]

89. I think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion.

That's what I think.

[SOS]

176. Absolutely

Is this a nation of crybabies now?
As a native resident of New York City, I've been chased down by gangs on more than one occasion, burglarized, had guns pulled on me three times, a knife once, spit on, pushed, accosted and mugged.
I never once even bothered to inform the police, let alone push for arrest.
People can be rough. You do the best you can. Arresting someone for a shove seems childish.
She has offered her apology. The cop can accept the apology. Case closed.

[DanCa]

100. I don't know all the facts.

I am going to wait until they come in before I decide one way or another.

[kiteinthewind]

104. IMHO, I think we should wait until we have the facts. And, BTW, this would

not be the first time she has been harassed. She is very outspoken and that doesn't set well with all the sheep.
:shrug:

[rpgamerd00d]

110. *** FACTS OF THE CASE HERE - ALL READ (updated) ***

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12070031 /

In her statement, McKinney said most members of Congress expect Capitol police to recognize them. “I was urgently trying to get to an important meeting on time to fulfill my obligations to my constituents. Unfortunately, the police officer did not recognize me as a member of Congress and a confrontation ensued,” she said. “I did not have on my congressional pin but showed the police officer my congressional ID.”

and:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/31/mckinney.police /

During the conference, held at historically black Howard University in Washington, civil rights attorney James Myart said his client was "assaulted" by a Capitol Police officer, whose name the department refuses to release.

"Because she was assaulted and placed in impending fear of her safety, she responded," he said. "This case has just begun and we're going to fight, and we're going to use the U.S. Constitution."

http://www.kyw1060.com/pages/20542.php

"Congresswoman McKinney, in a hurry, was essentially chased and grabbed by the officer," Myart said. "She reacted instinctively in an effort to defend herself."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060401/ap_on_go_co/mckinney_scuffle_15

"Congresswoman McKinney, in a hurry, was essentially chased and grabbed by the officer," Myart said. "She reacted instinctively in an effort to defend herself."


That is enough for an arrest.

I still think they will not arrest her, but they should.
I also still think she'd win the case.

[shance]

116. It's a set up. You know it. I know it. You're just trying to flame bait.

n/t

[rpgamerd00d]

119. Take off the tinfoil hat and be reasonable. -nt

[shance]

124. Man, you flamers throw around that tinfoil stuff like an unearned badge!

LOL! Try another one.

[rpgamerd00d]

130. Ok, I'll try another one.

Prove it was a pre-planned setup.

[shance]

134. You prove it wasn't a set up. Where's the video?

Why won't they release it. That would answer all the questions right there.

[rpgamerd00d]

139. Bzzt. Can't prove a negative. Nice try. You must prove your claim.

Not me.

[shance]

224. Oh man, that was brutal. Well, what you say is what you are.

And sticks and stones may break my bones.

McKinney "assaulted" the police? ROFL!* Really?

Then let's all grab the popcorn and and just SHOW the video.

[Lars39]

121. Sounds like she was assaulted first.

[rpgamerd00d]

123. Police have the power of Detainment, therefore, it cannot be assault.

[TroubleMan]

142. Bullshit!!! He grabbed her from behind without identifying himself first!

Someone grabbed her from behind, without notice, and she pushed him away in the chest. You can't just grab people from behind. All he had to do is get in front of her and stop her. That's it.

When someone grabs you from behind without warning, you can push them away or hit them to defend yourself - I don't care if it's the cops, FBI, secret service, ect. It's a natural reaction. You can't see the uniform when he's behind you.

[rpgamerd00d]

143. Bullshit. She knew it was a cop. Re-read what I quoted. -nt

[TroubleMan]

157. She recognized him, when she passed him earlier, but then

after she walked away, someone grabbed her from behind. The cops can't grab people from behind without saying stop first. Also, cops can assault people...just being a cop doesn't mean you can grab people from behind unless they're fleeing. She was walking away...not running.

[rpgamerd00d]

163. He did say stop first. -nt

[tyedyeto]

195. Where is the transcript for that?

It wasn't in any of the articles you cited.

[High Plains]

244. Dude, get a life. Don't you have anything better to do?

Than this crap.

[shance]

227. Probably. The answers are all there in the video.

So whats the problem?

JUST SHOW US THE VIDEO.

[bigtree]

122. a confrontation ensued? that's enough for an arrest? maybe in your town,

I was urgently trying to get to an important meeting on time (no crime there)

the police officer did not recognize me as a member of Congress and a confrontation ensued (she says she was assaulted. Perhaps the officer should be arrested)

I did not have on my congressional pin but showed the police officer my congressional ID (no crime there)


These reports don't have evidence a crime was committed, no matter how many times you post them.

[rpgamerd00d]

125. That evidence doesn't have to do with the assault, AS I SAID.

It has to do with proving she KNEW IT WAS A COP WHEN SHE HIT HIM.

She can't claim she didn't know who was grabbing her.

[bigtree]

136. she doesn't appear to have been quoted as saying she hit him

the article you provided says allegedly, but you take it further to say that the incident actually occurred and Rep. McKinney admitted it. I don't see that in the reports.

[rpgamerd00d]

140. I added a new article, re-read it. -nt

[bigtree]

158. "She reacted instinctively in an effort to defend herself."

self defense is not a crime.

I don't think you are being honest as to what the congresswoman has admitted to.

this article (http://www.kyw1060.com/pages/20542.php) couches the author's own statement that the representative hit the officer between her own statements about being assaulted.

this article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12070031) says Rep. McKinney 'allegedly' hit the guard with her cell phone. It gives a police account that says she struck the officer.

Still no statement from the congresswoman admitting that she struck the officer.

[flyarm]

177. and what part of the post you posted did you not read????????

as in this...so i suppose you would claim Cynthia guilty on the non words of an officer who has not been named..and an arrest has not been made..and and she claims she was assaulted by the police officer...so i guess you only listen to one side..the side the media brainwashes you with ..am i right????????? so you take the media's side ( or word)of it saying Cynthia assaulted a cop..but you totally ignore that she says she was assaulted..wowo..you need classes in what women think is dangerous to their personal safety..you have a long way to go!!

instincts are a very powerful thing in women...guess you don't know that do you??

seriously!!

are you of the * doctrine..guilty before proven innocent??

i want both sides in a court ..after an arrest ..and a jury telling me Cynthia is guilty..thats the way it has been done for my entire 54 years..prior to *


end of story..............
fly



http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/31/mckinney.police /

During the conference, held at historically black Howard University in Washington, civil rights attorney James Myart said his client was "assaulted" by a Capitol Police officer, whose name the department refuses to release.

"Because she was assaulted and placed in impending fear of her safety, she responded," he said. "This case has just begun and we're going to fight, and we're going to use the U.S. Constitution."

http://www.kyw1060.com/pages/20542.php

"Congresswoman McKinney, in a hurry, was essentially chased and grabbed by the officer," Myart said. "She reacted instinctively in an effort to defend herself."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060401/ap_on_go_co/mckinne...

"Congresswoman McKinney, in a hurry, was essentially chased and grabbed by the officer," Myart said. "She reacted instinctively in an effort to defend herself."

[Marie26]

189. Yadda yadda

That's all lawyer-speak for "she did it, and I have to spin it". If that's all the lawyer can come up with, it's not looking too good for McKinney. I'm not sure she should be arrested, though; it would depend how serious the punch was, if she actually hurt the officer, how much force he used, etc.

[devilgrrl]

115. Yep. I think you're right. ARREST THE BITCH! STRING HER UP!!!!!!!

I'd feel so much safer if that crazy broad were off the streets.

:sarcasm:

[dogday]

146. I think any opinion at the point is useless

We don't know the complete whole story... I hope they can work it out... It looks bad from both sides..

[devilgrrl]

152. Oh totally!!!! I can't believe this hasn't been locked yet.

What good has come out of this entire thread other than flaming?

[pdxmom]

155. That's where I am, too. As the mom of a 20 year old son, I have

taught him for years that yes, he's going to be stopped, followed, watched by the cops. I've told him to try not to do ANYTHING to give them a reason to actually have to deal with them, but that when he does, by damn he better do whatever they ask, within their rights, even if it seems outright wrong or unfair to him. If it's bogus or a problem, we'll take care of it through the right channels. It's a no-win situation if you do anything to compound a problem with another problem.

Maybe the Capitol cop was wrong. But the reaction may have been wrong as well. We don't have enough information at this point.

[TroubleMan]

147. She didn't commit a crime. Someone grabbed her from behind by surprise.

She struck out to defend herself. She can't possibly know who it is if the person is behind her.

Let's play a game. Tell me where you live, and I'll sneak up behind you and grab you. If you try to push me away, I'll throw you in jail.

C'mon...I'd expect better from a fellow rpg gamer. This whole thing should be a non-issue. A guy grabs her from behind, she strikes out, then she notices that he's a security guard, and he notices she's a not a trespasser. Then both go on with their lives. He should have got in front of her and told her to stop. If she hit him in that case, then she should be in trouble.

[rpgamerd00d]

150. This is wrong, I already proved she knew it was a cop. Re-read above.

[TroubleMan]

161. Your quote doesn't support your arguement

Sure she passed by him and showed her ID....then later he grabbed her from behind without confronting her first. It's not like he grabbed her as she was walking by. She had covered some distance and then he grabbed her. He should have got in front of her and stopped her. You can't grab someone like that...I don't care who you are. She wasn't running away.

[bigtree]

162. you're dreaming if you think you've 'proven' anything

with a handful of media accounts

[flyarm]

180. i guess you didn't read your own links...she thought she was under a n

assault...and acted instintively...what part of that are you not getting????????

fly

[rpgamerd00d]

201. Incorrect. She knew it was a cop

[flyarm]

232. no where in any articles youposted does it say she knew it was a cop

that grabbed her from behind..nice try...

fly

[Rex]

153. I think we should all watch the video of her and the cop

first. Have they released the tape yet?

[msgadget]

154. If a man grabs me from behind I'm gonna hit him. n/t

[rpgamerd00d]

159. Unless you already know he is a cop. She already knew. Proved above.

[bigtree]

165. with press accounts?

pfffttttt!!!!!!

[rpgamerd00d]

168. With her own words and words of her lawyer.

Unless thats no longer considered evidence for arrest purposes now?

[bigtree]

169. NONE OF THEM SHOW WHAT YOU CLAIM

see ya!

[rpgamerd00d]

171. Yes they do.

I claim there is sufficient evidence for an ARREST. Lets see if I'm right:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12070031 /

In her statement, McKinney said most members of Congress expect Capitol police to recognize them. “I was urgently trying to get to an important meeting on time to fulfill my obligations to my constituents. Unfortunately, the police officer did not recognize me as a member of Congress and a confrontation ensued,” she said. “I did not have on my congressional pin but showed the police officer my congressional ID.”

and:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/31/mckinney.police /

During the conference, held at historically black Howard University in Washington, civil rights attorney James Myart said his client was "assaulted" by a Capitol Police officer, whose name the department refuses to release.

"Because she was assaulted and placed in impending fear of her safety, she responded," he said. "This case has just begun and we're going to fight, and we're going to use the U.S. Constitution."

http://www.kyw1060.com/pages/20542.php

"Congresswoman McKinney, in a hurry, was essentially chased and grabbed by the officer," Myart said. "She reacted instinctively in an effort to defend herself."



Yep, I'm right.
There is enough evidence FOR AN ARREST.

[bemildred]

178. You claim it does, but your claim is worthless. nt

[rpgamerd00d]

179. Post a counter point. Because just saying so, doesnt make you credible.

[bemildred]

183. That is my point, you just made it. nt

[rpgamerd00d]

185. Post a counter to this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12070031 /

In her statement, McKinney said most members of Congress expect Capitol police to recognize them. “I was urgently trying to get to an important meeting on time to fulfill my obligations to my constituents. Unfortunately, the police officer did not recognize me as a member of Congress and a confrontation ensued,” she said. “I did not have on my congressional pin but showed the police officer my congressional ID.”

and:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/31/mckinney.police /

During the conference, held at historically black Howard University in Washington, civil rights attorney James Myart said his client was "assaulted" by a Capitol Police officer, whose name the department refuses to release.

"Because she was assaulted and placed in impending fear of her safety, she responded," he said. "This case has just begun and we're going to fight, and we're going to use the U.S. Constitution."

http://www.kyw1060.com/pages/20542.php

"Congresswoman McKinney, in a hurry, was essentially chased and grabbed by the officer," Myart said. "She reacted instinctively in an effort to defend herself."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060401/ap_on_go_co/mckinney_scuffle_15

"Congresswoman McKinney, in a hurry, was essentially chased and grabbed by the officer," Myart said. "She reacted instinctively in an effort to defend herself."


That is enough for an arrest.

I still think they will not arrest her, but they should.
I also still think she'd win the case.

[bemildred]

191. I have read that several times now, is says she was assaulted

by the officer and responded in kind.

[rpgamerd00d]

196. Thank you for admitting she assaulted the cop. Finally.

[bemildred]

205. Thank you for admitting the cop assaulted her. nt

[bemildred]

187. You post some quotes, and provide your interpretation, and

claim that your interpretation is authoritative. Well, I am Jesus Christ incarnate, descended to Earth again, and I say my interpretation is authoritative, and your quotes prove nothing about Ms McKinneys state of mind when she smacked the cop. Now how is the disinterested onlooker to discern which of us to believe?

[flyarm]

186. she has said she will be exonerated..did you miss that??

did you convieniently miss that??
did you miss the part where she said her lawyers advised her not to discuss what happened??

did you miss the part where she was grabbed from behind..and she was talking on her cell phone at the time??

did you miss where her lawyer said she reacted with instincts because she thought she was being assaulted??

i thought so..

fly

[rpgamerd00d]

203. Incorrect. She knew it was a cop

[msgadget]

172. As someone who worked in this capacity has said

in a previous thread, it is their responsibility to recognize all members and it is standard practice for members to bypass the checkpoint as she did. So, as a recognizable figure if I was grabbed disrespectfully by anyone I'd have pushed back. She had no reason to believe he was anything but an enemy when he grabbed her. That being said, I can't believe this has gotten so far. When he explained he didn't recognize her it should've been with an apology and she, in turn, could've apologized for whalloping him. I don't like that it's become such a big deal because it's very unprofessional on both their parts.


Edit to add: I also cheered the president (yes, this one) when he reached back into a crowd in South America to assist his Secret Service agent. Our politicians should be defensive, pro-active! :)

[rpgamerd00d]

174. Again, 100% incorrect. She knew it was a cop, he identified himself.

Your arguement holds no water.

[flyarm]

197. and she had shown her id..so your point is??

i guess you missed that as well..she showed her id...she showed her id..she showed her congressional id..did you miss that??

now someone was attacking her by grabbing her from behind..anyone who grabbed me from behind would get everything i had in me to attack them with..got that??

and i suppose you know what her security training is??

like al quaeda could not impenatrate security..and you know that how???

so if anyone grabs me from behind ..my security training says get away any way you can...
period...
so you don't know that pro-active training??

well ya know..alot of us women do!

fly

[Judi Lynn]

204. I know I read she showed her I.D. as she went through.

Anyone who missed it apparently found it conflicted with a good anti-Cynthia rampage.

[msgadget]

216. I didn't say she didn't

and I have absolutely no problem with your opinion, I'm just expressing mine. Did you read the rest of what I said? She had no reason to believe he wished her well AND they both should've apologized to each other. This is a TEENY incident blown completely out of proportion and if they'd just apologized to each other there'd be no need for charges. Their two wrongs cancel each other out, imo.

[flyarm]

182. not proved above..not proved anywhere..and certainly not

proved by Cynthias side of the story..

end of story!


love those media story's dontcha...

are you her lawyer??

didn't think so..

fly

[rpgamerd00d]

184. I proved there is enough for arrest.

Please learn the difference between evidence sufficient for ARREST, and evidence sufficient for CONVICTION.

[flyarm]

202. seems to me you already have her proven guilty and convicted!!

with no facts !

other than your little media tid bits...

so when was she arrested??

fly

[flyarm]

234. bullcrap unadulterated bullcrap!

from msnbc..the same msnbc that is owned by no bid iraq contract nbc/general electric???????? you mean that msnbc??

or cnn..communistic network news?

so that is your proof??

move along nothing here...

fly

[fishwax]

188. it's a good thing you already know she's guilty

it'll save them the authorities the trouble of investigation.

[rpgamerd00d]

199. Thats what a COURT is for. Duh.

[fishwax]

221. But you've already declared it so

The investigation is ongoing. They haven't even determined a crime has taken place. And yet you have declared that she committed a crime.

[rpgamerd00d]

190. I CANT BELIEVE I NEED TO SPELL THIS OUT TO YOU.

Evaluate the following two scenarios, tell me which one is better for the DEMS in 06.


1) She isn't charged.
2) She is charged and wins.

[Lars39]

200. Got news for you; it doesn't matter!

Her name and 'assault and being arrested' are now on the way to being linked in the public mind.
And you have been partly to thank for that.

Why are you toting water for the fascists?

[rpgamerd00d]

206. I stand for Justice and the Law. How about you?

[Lars39]

214. You're also smearing her without having all the facts.

[flyarm]

235. no you don't you have already made this a crime when no crime has been

charged!

you stand for telling people a crime has been committed, when you know nothing of the sort!

fly

[bridgit]

198. i would think the security camera should assist in determining what...

course next for Ms. McKinney, if any; here's hoping she is able to recognize whatever irritants were brought to the event

[BuyingThyme]

207. You're right, rpgamerd00d.

Whether the officer made a mistake or not, McKinney must be held to an adult standard. If the officer believes he was struck while performing his duties, he must proceed as he would against any other citizen.

Those who argue otherwise are horrible embarrassments to DU.

[rpgamerd00d]

209. Ok, I need to go. But before I do, this last comment.

No one here can defend her other than the very generic "All people are innocent until proven guilty."
I agree.

And where do people get proven guilty (or found innocent) ? A court.

How do people get to that court? They get arrested.

How do people get arrested? By committing a crime.

What did she do, and admit to doing? She "hit" a cop after he identified himself. That's assault and its a crime.

No other details matter. That alone is what the Capitol Police will consider in issuing an arrest warrant or not.

I have shown that there is enough evidence to ARREST. Not CONVICT, I said ARREST.
Evidence to ARREST is no where near the same thing as evidence TO CONVICT. Different animals.
No one here can argue that there is not enough evidence to arrest. No one.


Its very sad, but I have to say that threads like this show who the real moonbats are and who the really rational thinkers are.

[Lars39]

215. And this post proves nothing except you also like to smear DUers.

[bigtree]

217. moon bats

nothing wrong with moon bats

But, I think you meant it as an insult. Not a good faith discussion here, evidenced by that statement alone.

[High Plains]

247. Boy, talk about full of shit.

I hope you find something constructive to do with the rest of your day.

[DURHAM D]

211. I hope that they are stupid enough to arrest her - it will be

a political nightmare for the Repugs.

It will be one more example (like Katrina) of their race-based agenda. It will highlight their gender bias.

Let us have this national conversation. Let us have this debate.

Bring it on.

[bemildred]

212. Should be an excellent show.

She will hand them their asses on a platter.
:popcorn:

[natrat]

220. ah the same capitol police who arrested cindy for a t shirt

what a scam troll thread...no one is above the law ...what an incredible simplistic crock of shit given the environment today

[ShortnFiery]

226. Meanwhile Darth Cheney shoots a friend in the face with no repercussions .

What a beautiful world it must be for those *in power* ... trust me on this: If any Republican would have done the same, for example - Condi Rice - the Capitol Hill Officer would be the one fired without any hope of future employment.

Can't you see, those who have *power* own the POLICE ... as we inch toward a POLICE STATE?

To all those of you who CLAIM that "the wealthy and connected" are NOT above the law: enjoy your deluded Disneyworld rants ... well until they COME TO GET YOU and/or leave your family in abject poverty ... why? because you do not have enough financial assets to be part of the "investor" vice "chattering class." Life will be SHIT in a decade if you do not have the money to invest. Now that is all but fact given the course this country is on.

If we don't make our gutless wonder representatives STAND UP TOGETHER against such a travesty of justice, then we deserve the full fruition of a totalitarian police state.

Shame on you who tout that "the officer was doing his job"! Since the officer is NOT physically injured these charges are the mark of a Republican Operative Crony. Any PROFESSIONAL OFFICER, democrat or republican in political beliefs, would NOT make this a "national issue." Why, we have far more important issues to address in this troubled country.

But oh, would it not be nice to allow the Ruling Class (Dems as well as Rep) rid themselves of that troublemaker who speaks for the downtrodden.

Wake up fellow populists! This is not justice but another thuggery on the average American.

[pdxmom]

230. And the same Capiltol Police who lost two of their own in 1998

to a paranoid schizophrenic intent on killing others.

[ShortnFiery]

231. Well, that is NOT a fair comparison ...

She was on her cell phone. The officer GRABBED HER. The assault is on his part.

How bout' reciprocal charges.

Police Officers are NOT God Almighty. Yes, I respect that they have a thankless job, but this ONE PARTICULAR OFFICER is nothing but a patsy, since he was NOT harmed, he should NOT CONSIDER pressing charges for one moment.

Damn if I will allow the Police to OWN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Albeit I come from a long line of relatives who are Police Officers, Security and Prison Guards.

Has anyone truly entertained the notion that the FIRST MISTAKE was that of THE OFFICER?

It was, and he is being USED by those *in power* to get rid of one of our most outstanding Representatives.

Look to the *larger picture* and SMELL the disgusting notions of Melman, Rove, etc. If this goes forward it is a mis-carriage of justice.

It is our true first step toward a Police State: "Welcome to the Machine."

[pdxmom]

237. Reciprocal charges may be called for. I'd need to have more details

to know if anyone should be charged with anything. At this point, everything has gotten so blown out of proportion, it's hard to know what is what.

I know what it's like to have to enter a federally secured building on a daily basis. Even if you're known, there are still protocols that need to be followed. And once you start slacking off on those protocols, that is when the security becomes lax. Maybe the officer was wrong to put his hand on her, but in a crowd like those at the Capitol, with the noise level there, if she didn't respond to his voice, how SHOULD he have stopped her? I just don't know enough to see if this was part of a "larger picture" or just a misunderstanding that got totally blown out of proportion.

I know that if I tried to just walk on past security in my job, though they see me pretty consistently, and just ignored their calls to me to stop, I wouldn't be a bit surprised for them to put their hands on me to stop me.

[ShortnFiery]

239. Your post contains all the Right Wing talking points for this week ...

I know security also through an extensive background which I will not go into detail here.

You continue to IGNORE my primary point: The OFFICER in Question *failed* to recognize McKinney. That is his bust - GRABBING someone is an assault.

For example: I can not fathom that he would grab Rummy's arm had he not seen a badge or pin?!? No, no one can fathom that.

Finally, there should be NO CHARGES FILED because this officer was *at fault* for not identifying an Congresswoman! They are stationed there to protect these people for heaven's sake!

Only those who love to play FAUX news character degradation on our good Congresswoman McKinney would wish for this to go any further.

IF this Capitol Hill Police Officer proves to be a TRUE PROFESSIONAL, he will NOT press charges.

I'm getting the impression that he does NOT plan to. Because there was a Republican Committee member who observed this incident, it is getting blown out of proportion.

Again, if this Officer is not physically injured he needs to SUCK IT UP and "let it go" because he FAILED in his job by assaulting an African American Congresswoman. HE assaulted HER first. Period!

[pdxmom]

240. Nowhere have in my posts have I ever indicated I want this to go

further. And nowhere have I used any RW talking points -- my own feelings, thankyouverymuch. (Nice attempt though).

I doubt there will be any arrest at this point, either. I agreed from the get-go that this was blown out of proportion. The political fallout is more than the Capitol Police will want to deal with.

My point is, and has always been, that we really don't know what happened. We know she didn't have on some pin they are supposed to wear, but flashed her badge. Okay, fine. So he's doing his thing at the screening point, she admits that she's in a hurry to get to her meeting, and she rushes past, flashing her badge. He glances up, sees her from behind and doesn't recognize her. He follows her, calling "Ma'am. Ma'am". She doesn't respond and just keeps going. Now what should he do? Let that person go? Or stop her and see her ID more clearly?

Possible scenerio? I don't know what happened. Neither do you. Point is...lots of harsh words are being flung around about an incident that we only have the sketchiest information about. And to play judge and jury towards the officer without knowing all the facts is just as bad as those that have placed full blame on Ms. McKinney without full facts.

[ShortnFiery]

241. We disagree - Read my posts more carefully, No Thank-yous from me n/t.

[LaPera]

233. "Especially a cop"...What bullshit! They aren't nothing sacred...

just protecting the rich and status quo...as if we haven't heard the literally tens of thousands of stories of police brutality, lying, pay-offs false arrests, planted evidence, and the absolute corruption by cops..."especially a cop"... this is the complete bullshit that I take issue with...they are just a badge & gun no different than anyone nor more important, it's their chosen job,...If you believe one should be arrested for the alledged act of assaulting someone... your free to believe and to your beliefs...but "especially a cop" it's their word against mine, and I've watched the cops lie many times!!! What stupid, clueless, idol-struck bullshit!!!!

[McCamy Taylor]

236. Happy April Fools to you, too.

[radio4progressives]

238. McKinney Committed a Crime? Evidence Please?

Do you have evidence that Cynthia McKinney is GUILTY of a crime?

what CRIMINAL conduct would that be and what is the criminal code of conduct that she violated? And furthermore, were you a witness?

[Nutmegger]

242. It sounds like a buch of LIES propagated by the right-wing

Have you seen McKinney??? I doubt that the cop was hit. She is being swiftboated plain and simple.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

243. If you intended to be controversial, you've succeeded....

...just curious, but what do you think about a security guard that grabs someone from behind? How about if that someone was wearing her Congressional ID?

McKinney committed a crime? Pray tell, what was it?

[rman]

245. Evidence?

Video would be nice. It's there but they won't release it.

You're pretty quick to cast judgment.
Been in the court of public opinion much?

[Mythsaje]

248. Someone grabs me from behind

2/10s of second later they're holding empty air and nursing an injured wrist/forearm. Ain't no thought involved. It's reflex.

I think pronouncing her guilty of anything at this point is rather premature.

[mondo joe]

255. Ha!

I love message board tough talk.

[Mythsaje]

257. Ain't no joke.

It's a simple fact.

[kid a]

252. ARe you a black woman who has been in any situation with a cop?

Save your judgement

[cynatnite]

254. If she broke the law...yes

Since we don't know it's hard to say one way or the other.

[ShortnFiery]

258. That's the problem - We KNOW!

We know the following:

1) This incident was opened-up by Rove's best buddy's website when he wishes to put up trial balloons for character assassinations, Matt Drudge was FIRST to announce this incident;

2) We also know that "one of the observers", a Republican Committee member is, as far as I know, the ONLY witness who claims that the Capitol Hill Police is going to press charges;

3) FAUX news is "swift boating" Mckinney at ever given opportunity.

Now, the above incident may have NOT been a set up but it stinks to high heaven.

4) Through numerous reports it has been put forth that McKinney had shown her ID, moved on, and then was grabbed from behind from a Capitol Hill police officer - (What's up with that?).

I know from my personal experience, I study the identifying features of "people of color" more closely. Why? Being lily white, it is more difficult to discern between facial characteristics of races other than my own. That is not a crime, but natural.

We do KNOW from what has been reported that this Capitol Hill Police Officer *failed* to not only recognize Congresswoman McKinney but that he also assaulted her by grabbing her from BEHIND.

Case closed? The Capitol Hill Officer (security is trained as such) could have take a few steps in front of her and made a scene, that's cool, but to GRAB someone from behind because you didn't get a close look at her badge ... well, again - it would have been grand if she was a black crack whore looking for lodging but INSTEAD she was an esteemed Congresswoman who did not know WHO EXACTLY was assaulting her.

End of story - The only people who should be dis-respecting Congresswoman McKinney are the Freepers and Republican Operatives at this point.

I kid you not, if this Officer does not do the PROFESSIONAL thing, not only may he be a Republican operative, but if it was not planned, there may be tones of racism and sexism in his actions.

May this Capitol Police Officer be professional and announce SOON that no charges will be filed.

Our Country will be put through the ringer but McKinney will win the war.

[LSK]

262. we also know the "video" is not being released

Smells damn fishy to me.

[LSK]

260. PROVE SHE DID IT

FUCKING CANT BELIEVE PEOPLE FALL FOR THE RIGHT WING FAIRY TALES..

:grr:

[Thtwudbeme]

267. Of.course.you.do.

What I don't understand is the DUers frothing at the keyboard to argue with you.

[maddezmom]

268. locking

flamebait...nothing new being discussed here.