If Cynthia McKinney struck an officer, she deserves arrest.

[benburch]

NOTHING puts her above the law.

We DEMAND that The Drunk at 1600 Pennsylvania not be above the law, then why should we have a different standard for Congressperson McKinney?

OK, so she's a woman.

OK, so she's a black woman.

OK, so she's a black woman congressperson.

OK, so she's a black woman congressperson who is a Democrat.

OK, so she's a black woman congressperson who is a Democrat and a long-time critic of our Commander-In-Thief (who cannot even pitch a baseball.)

What in the above means that she should be allowed to strike an officer of the law?

It does NOT matter if that officer acted inappropriately! The law demands that you comply with the officer, and then FILE A COMPLAINT. And being a Congressperson, that complaint would absolutely have been heard. (She could also have held a press conference!)

If You or I struck an officer we would expect to be arrested for it. This can be NO DIFFERENT.

[babylonsister]

1. .........

:popcorn:

[Crazy Guggenheim]

32. I just got here.

:popcorn: :popcorn:

[johnnie]

38. Just got here too

Hope you don't mind if I join ya.

:popcorn:

[Crazy Guggenheim]

39. Sure I'll move over. How ya doin'?

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[johnnie]

48. Peachy, thanks

:popcorn: :popcorn:

[Hutzpa]

256. Hey! can I join you guys I've got the drinks

:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

[babylonsister]

44. Hey, Crazy. More than enough to go around!

But you already knew that. :) :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[okieinpain]

208. you actually made me laugh.... pretty good.

[sweetheart]

2. bollocks, polce brutality, police state thuggery

I've no respect for such a police thug state,
and don't accept this trivial criminalzation,
to trivialize the progressive voice.

[SPKrazy]

7. Trivialize the Progressive Voice?

CM is not the progressive voice

the progressive voice is much larger than this

[sweetheart]

9. she's a mouth

therefore a voice.

not "the" voice... sorry for
giving that impression.

[SPKrazy]

26. I Agree She's A "Mouth"

and I'll leave it at that

[U4ikLefty]

191. Can you name some other "mouths"??? n/t

[SPKrazy]

258. I'm Fond Of People Like

Oh,Russ Feingold, Wes Clark, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Vic Snyder, John Stewart, Will Pitt, Larisa Alexandranova, Ariana Huffington, Sheila Jackson Lee, Congresswoman Waters from South Central LA (can't remember first name right now), Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, John Edwards, John Kerry, Randi Rhodes, and so many others.

The progressive voice is large.

McKinney may be part of that, but she is not "the progressive voice" as the poster stated, then changed to mean "a progressive voice"

got it?

[Orrex]

11. Then the question MUST be: Where do we draw the line?

I think I should be allowed to drive 100 mph through a school zone. Can I punch the officer who gives me a citation? Can I thereafter claim innocence because I'm thwarting the police state?

No.

If someone wants to break the law in order to show that the legal system is broken, then one must accept the consequences of that action. Otherwise it's just grandstanding.

[sweetheart]

23. conjecture without evidence

I too look forward to not seeing the video, but i'll wager that
she did not start a violent thing with a cop.. that sorta stuff
just don't fall out of the sky, its exacerbated.

When cops get heavy handed, they often spin that the citizen
was resisting or some such, cuz any citzen would indeed resist
being abused, rightly so. I have only ever had police grab me
abusively, criminally, if the law were just, grabbing my person
to make an illegal arrest in one case, which the judge quickly
overturned the next day when they found out the cop had exceeded
any written law except his own autority to lock up a citizen
without charge.

I have no trust for cops who's authority is to grab people, and
when they grab me, i'm not the happy go easy customer any more, i#ve
HAD it with being shaken down by prison guards... touchy perhaps,
hot headed and arrogant flaming, but once you've ever been abused
by the police, the trust is broken, they are always potentially the
most evil thugs in the universe dressed in fancy digs.

They have no right to touch Ms. McKinney. If they touched her
without her consent, she should kick their asses both legally and
physically.

[Orrex]

31. The OP *did* specify "if," did it not?

And that's what started the discussion. IF she struck a cop, she must face the consequences. If her actions were justified, then this must be demonstrated through investigation. If her actions were not justified, then she should be fined or cited.

Do you agree with that much?

By the way--if you take some action against cops that that you deem justified, then I wish you the best of luck. But if you have the courage of your convictions (as the phrase goes), then you too must be willing to accept the consequences.

[sweetheart]

50. "striking a cop"

When a cop reaches out to arrest you, they usually go for the right wrist,
i guess as they twist it behind you to put hand cuffs on. This initial
reach for my right wrist resulted in my automatic response of 5+ years
martial arts training of an upwards right block that his hand popped away.
"I" resisted arrest and "struck" a cop... because he was grabbing me to
arrest me for what turned out later to not even be a crime.... the whole
charade was the crime, and respecting it is the crime as well.

It IS deeply disconcerting that police authority is only as good as the
corporate fascist prison state that employs it. I agree that one
accepts the life-consequences of ones actions. I don't hit policemen,
rather figuring that any encounter with the prison guards will potentially
result in their killing me, so i act like i'm on death row, every time, nmwadays.

The drugs war, and the war on civility has turned the police from friends
to brownshirts. Its really tragic, and no german who ever turfed a brownshirt
is ever scorned today, whatever price in life they paid then.

[Orrex]

68. Off-topic: This sounds familiar to me

This initial reach for my right wrist resulted in my automatic response of 5+ years martial arts training of an upwards right block that his hand popped away.

Over the years I've heard a variation of that phrase from close to two dozen devoted martial artists I've known, and it always puzzles me. Does martial arts training emphasize your unthinking reflexes to the point that you're unable to control them? That hardly sounds like a discipline to me. What if your grandmother grabs you unexpectedly? Do you give her a quick roundhouse to the head?

I mean, I have pretty quick reflexes and I can juggle as well as anyone I know. But that doesn't mean that when I see a pile of tennis balls I helplessly lapse into a simple cascade pattern.


Anyway, back on topic. I'm really very sorry that you've had a bad experience with cops. I think you and I have actually discussed this previously, though I can't seem to find the thread at the moment.

[sweetheart]

87. yez i did

and i still did not like it. :-)

The martial arts reactions are trained to be very fast,
and over many hours of persons reaching to grab your right wrist,
you punch their hand away gracefully with just enought energy to deter.
It really does become second nature, even when cops attack.

Nobody who ever means you well seeks to contain your wrist.

You know it when you're locked in to a bad situation with a bad cop.
The cop then sets the adgenda, and you just play along. Its like being
raped, and every action is just the victem's to accept or to contemplate
the repurcussions of a resistance.

In another incident entirely, when i was being grabbed and held down battery park,
NYC, for having my dogs off leash, i was very concerned when several non-white
non-uniformed (what looked like gang members) started to corner in on me and my
dog in the grass as i was picking up her poop... so i grabbed my babys and we
made a run to get away from the muggers. Well, after throwing me against a
police car and then telling me they were police officers defending the park
against off-leash dogs, i suddenly realized that the laws of my society had
just legitimzied terrorizing me for the crime of giving my little fur-baby
some free time in the grass. I will never pay that ticket. That was the last
straw... my furbabes will die outside the country... nobody terrorizes my family.

[bemildred]

73. It's pretty much classic PR stuff going on here.

Deniable slurs, keeping the "striking a cop" meme (and others) out there without making any falsifiable statements. Spreading uncertainty and negative images while pretending concern about order and fairness and the justice and standing up for the little guy and the like. All noise is good as long as the negative image is kept front and center.

[sweetheart]

99. yes, police state

The largest prison population of any nation on earth.
Police that have unprecedented arrest and surveillance powers.
A bill of rights that is gettting shorter by the day.

My way of getting back at those fucked up cops who arrested
me illegally and screwed with my life, however much they
think they got away with it, the writer's perogative to
use the event again and again as much as i please until i
feel that having my nose ground in to that grungy-cops
hood for his illegal arrest, that police everywhere pause
to consider that one of their own has abused the power
they think they are using justly... and that the person
they are shaking down has probably already met the lesser
of their kind.

It is classic and due, our police state,
excusing the indiviuals, has given too much credence to
the official powers of the brownshirts.

[bemildred]

103. Their lives suck too, that is why they are so often assholes.

On the other hand, I met a nice one a month or so ago, a kind one, but I won't go into that.

The best revenge is living well, and making a permanent record is an excellent second choice. We have no rights, only privileges, but it helps at least when you know the score. And yeah, we let it happen.

[sweetheart]

111. for all the good cops out there.

peace.

I've met good cops more often than bad,
but that gun, once unholstered stays that way,
every cop, every future friendly cuff,
and a little state violence goes a long way,
the institutional nature of uniformed stuff.

For all the good cops out there,
some laws are evil, best pretend unaware.

[bemildred]

112. Yeah, may your lives shine, and your spirit be happy.

For all the good ones.
:hi:

[Hutzpa]

259. Do you know the facts......YES or NO

no need speculating because thats what OP is doing, no one knows the fact of what happen except the media and people like yourself that still believe on that box that keeps dragging this thing along, when we all know the fact then we can make our own individual decision from there. Lets all stop this speculating.

The sad fact is the cop remains anonymous while she is being smeared.

[lala_rawraw]

159. you draw the line when their abuse of power extends

to your own body.

[Orrex]

221. That's doesn't really answer it, though

I'm with you on the "to your own body" angle, but we still have to define "abuse of power."

If a police officer grasps your wrist to prevent your departure when, say, you're suspected of shoplifting and you've ignored a verbal instruction, is that an abuse of power?

When is an officer justified in grasping your wrist? Never?

I suspect that the reason that this is such a contentious issue is because so many terms and criteria are not as clear-cut and self-evident as we'd like them to be.

[lala_rawraw]

228. true

but this is not hypothetical and this is a member of Congress who has been routinely smeared and intimidated by this administration. and within moments of the event, a story runs with bogus accusations of things she said in the past regarding 911.

my understanding from her staff is that she was manhandled and that it was not a wrist grabbing thing (as one would think a cop might do to detainee someone) it was a push/pull type thing. again, this is a six term member of congress and if the cop did not know who she was, then the cop needs to be fired. i have been in that building and that exact metal detector and i can tell you that it is a tiny alcove... if she walked by and would not stop, the cop had time to get in front of her or he could have walked with her to her office.

[Orrex]

229. Ideally, perhaps

If she struck the officer, then she must accept the consequences. There's no justifiable way around this, because there's no ironclad distinction between "wrist-grabbing" and "manhandling." I don't like that a cop cut me off in traffic--can I rear-end his cruiser? Sure I can, but I have to accept the consequences. I don't like that a cop pushed me--can I punch him in the face? Sure I can, but again I must accept the consequences.

Subsequent review may or may not exonerate me of any wrong-doing, but that's the price I have to pay. The same goes in this case. If she was justified in striking the officer, then she should be exonerated of any wrong-doing.

But she can't (and neither can her staff or her supporters) claim that because she (and they) say that she was mistreated, she therefore can strike with impunity. That's exactly the kind of above-the-law mentality that we're trying to combat in Dubya's administration.

this is a six term member of congress and if the cop did not know who she was, then the cop needs to be fired.

I'm afraid that I may have to disagree with this. Is it the cop's job to know every member of congress? If face-recognition is an actual requirement of his job, then maybe he should be disciplined or fired for failure to fulfill that requirement. But if it would simply be a matter of courtesy, then his failure to recognize her should not, in itself, constitute grounds for termination.

If his "manhandling" is found to be unjustified (as it really does appear to be), then he should be disciplined for that reason. But failure to recognize? That seems insufficient to me.

[Mike Daniels]

234. So an officer of the law grabbing the arm of someone who refused...

to follow several requests to stop is brutality?

Too f'in funny.

[sweetheart]

240. it is assault

It is abuse of police powers.
It is police bullying thinly veiled behind protocol.
Sure, they can always yell to stop and demand you
heel like a dog, and i hope we are not slaves, but
i expect we have every right to not heel for no
trivial abuse of power.

Grabbing somebody is really inappropriate, and
the officer, were better trained, could have
avoided any problem, and done the job.

The policemen are a threat to our freedom, unless
they stick to real crime, but as it seems increasingly,
"crime" has become a twisted thing, that no longer
are criminals doing crime, nor innocent people not criminals.
and in that mix, police authority is just as criminal.

Defusing this would be the political victory,
truth be told, if ms mckinney could make well with
her accuser and we can call a scuffle a fluster of the
moment and not a critical event. Our inability to
apply common sense, where police are grabbing people,
there's bound to be some kickback, it is an abuse of
authority, it is an insideious form of police
brutality, yes.

[warrior1]

3. Mine's bigger!

[SPKrazy]

4. I Agree With You

I hope you have your flame suit on because this issue seems to be creating great divisions among those who are thinking (what I consider) rationally, and those who are shouting from the rooftops that it is "racial profiling" etc.

The facts as I see them are that no one knows except Cynthia McKinney, and the Capitol Police, and any witnesses (including video).

It has been turned over to a Federal Prosecutor now, so I assume that they (Capitol Police) must at least think they have a case. This is in no way an accusation of guilt.

But I agree, if she did it, she should pay.

If she didn't, then she will be vindicated.

[WestHoustonDem]

5. Have we seen the surveillance video yet? Until we do, passing

judgement is not even as valid as Frists' diagnosis of Terry Schiavo.

[benburch]

8. That's why I said "If".

Don't forget that important word.

[Solomon]

225. Aw get off it. "If" a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass ahopping.

Black people loot, white people find. I've seen this thing escalate from a mere poke or shove to FULL BLOWN ASSAULT ON A POLICE OFFICER.

Just scratch the surface only a little bit in america and out it comes.

[ShaneGR]

13. If she turned around and punched the officer in the chest....

She should be charged and arrested in the matter. Actually, if the video shows her striking the officer, it's amazing to me that she was not arrested on site and probably received preferable treatment BECAUSE she's a congression rep. The bottom line here though, as a US CONGRESSWOMAN, would you be storming through security barrers and tussling with security guards??? OF COURSE NOT. We can't be like Republicans and thumb our noses when someone on our side does something wrong, the best way to KILL a problem like this is to apologize and move on. Everytime. If she had apologized, said she was frightened, and moved along none of this would have been an issue.

[wakeme2008]

6. I agree

If she struck an officer she is STUPID....

[baldguy]

10. Granted, McKinney is a prima donna.

Its not a crime to be a prima donna.

[gristy]

12. Well, of course they won't arrest her.

So she should turn herself in! A citizen's arrest!!!!

[devilgrrl]

14. I'm apalled, that you - of all people - would waste your time with this.

Fine!

Arrest her already!

Jesus H. Christ!

[benburch]

16. How much time did I waste?

I think it cost my three minute now to post my opinion and reply to a couple of replies...

And I am between show postings, so its my coffee break.

But the point is that we must stand of principle here. NOBODY should be allowed to be above the law.

[devilgrrl]

29. This about the 100th thread today stating the same thing...

perhaps you didn't know. Sorry.

What I'd like to know, if this is as serious as many are making it out to be, THEN WHY THE FUCK HASN'T SHE BEEN ARRESTED YET?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

[benburch]

45. They cannot arrest her while Congress is in session.

It is in the Constitution.

They have to wait for Congress to be in recess. And when it is again in session, if she is jailed, they have to let her out.

[onenote]

168. wrong: breach of peace exception to immunity provision

article I, Section 6:

They shall in all cases except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during the attendance at the session of their repsective Houses...."

[timtom]

211. How about a little "trickle down"?

First, we start at the top and do a massive roundup of all wrongdoers, the enormity of the crime being the sorting factor.

Then, when we have brought all tier one criminals (we all know who they are -- the liars and the enablers) to justice, we go after tier two criminals (nobid contract awards, failure to complete 120 out of 122 projects for which some contractor was paid $200 million(?).

Then, we go after...well, you get the picture.

Legality aside, I am firmly opposed to the glorification of police of any sort.

I am firmly opposed to the notion of "security". It really doesn't seem to work.

I just think our model is so very, very wrong. We need to challenge our own axioms -- all of us.

[bemildred]

15. If the cop is incompetent or violent, he should be fired.

NOTHING puts him above the law.

We DEMAND that The Drunk at 1600 Pennsylvania not be above the law, then why should we have a different standard for a cop?

OK, so he's a cop.

OK, so he's a white cop.

OK, so he's a newbie white cop.

(blah blah blah ...)

What in the above means that he should be allowed to assault a Congressperson?

It does NOT matter if she acted inappropriately! The law demands that he treat her with respect. Citizens should always be treated with respect, especially Congresspersons.

If You or I assaulted a Cogressperson we would expect to be arrested for it. This can be NO DIFFERENT.

[benburch]

21. No argument.

Perhaps both should be tried for this.

[bemildred]

24. It is fun to speculate, isn't it? nt

[onenote]

172. thanks for playing, but nope

If you jaywalk and a cop orders you to stop and you don't, he can physically restrain you. Its the law. If you jaywalk and I physically restrain you, you can sue me. Get the difference.

I don't know exactly what took place but I do know the following: I've entered various House and Senate buildings and the Capitol literally hundreds of times and the Capitol Hill police have unfailingly been polite and professional. But if someone ignored their command, they would firmly restrain the person. Its their job, its their duty.


Again, I have no opinion on this particular incident because I don't know exactly what happened. But neither do the people here who assume the cop was in the wrong. Maybe so, but not if McKinney ignored and/or refused a direct command.

onenote

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bpilgrim]

19. ditto

peace

[benburch]

20. And if I did, I would!

But people here are treating this like she should be given a PASS.

[bpilgrim]

27. no, people aren't buying the BS story that has changed since day one

the story we are gleaning from her is that she was assaulted, smeared and threatened, not the other way around.

If that is true the cop should lose his job.

peace

[stepnw1f]

94. what bpilgrim says

[TheBaldyMan]

18. nobody is above the law not even the President of the USA

but the President hasn't got whole networks trying to swiftboat him over a misdemeanor or minor felony.

[MrSlayer]

22. I agree. IF that is in fact what happened.

If she hit a cop she should be punished. No excuses. It will be interesting to see the video.

[peacetalksforall]

25. You know something - we don't know everything. It's too early. Until

we know when he first told her to stop and where she was in relation to him, we can't take sides. If she was ahead of him when he said to stop, she may not have thought that anyone was speaking to her. If she was with somone and talking to them, she may not have thought that anyone was speaking to her AND she might not have heard him.

In addtion, we don't know where he touched her, do we?

If she walked in expecting to be recognized as is the policy, why should she think that anyone was talking to her if there wasn't eye contact?

And we don't know if there was eye contact, do we?

The entire episode has to be diagrammed and put in chonological sequence with witnesses, before we take sides.

It's silly to defend or accuse her - because we are not the witnesses.

We know from the news that she was supposed to have been recognized.
Someone touched her.
She touched someone.
There is a very big deal being made out of it.
And Duers are taking sides?

[1620rock]

35. ...umm I don't know. The cops are going nuts again...

...just like they did in the 60's. Remember (pigs!) I don't see any of them arresting the 'real' criminals in DC.:shrug:

[MadMaddie]

28. Well...if they are going

to uphold the law in DC they should uphold the law across the country....then charges should be pressed against Cheney for drinking and discharging a firearm in an old mans face right?

I mean after all the law is color blind isn't it:sarcasm:

[benburch]

30. I demand that it BE color blind.

That it isn't is why we are fighting this fight.

[MadMaddie]

37. You would think.....

All Americans should demand that it be color blind....but the * administration has set this country back 10-15 years....as a black American I think if McKinney did break the law then she should be cited and arrested if the facts warrent it...

Just a question to think about...if McKinney or any other minority broke the law as Tom Delay did, or Cheney or Frist...or Condi (doesn't count as black) or (Fill in Name Here ) repug....do you think they would still be holding their position? Highly unlikely.....

That is the true state of America....blacks in America know this...not a surprise...

[benburch]

43. Well, Delay is being tried.

I take my progress where I can find it.

[pocket]

33. and Rodney King shouldn't have resisted, they HAD to beat him like that

I guess if a pig ever roughs you up it will automatically be your fault.

[benburch]

36. Correct me if I am wrong here, please.

But Congressperson McKinney was not hospitalized. Or even injured.

[Just Me]

34. Ben, I just,...hate you, right now. Of all the goddamned priorities,...

,...you have to be benevolently principled about Ms. Cynthia's reaction to a cop's treatment of her when fucking criminals and murderers are running this country!

I'll forgive your misplaced priorities AFTER I hate you, for a moment, for being ridiculously anal.

That is just how I feel about that.

[benburch]

40. Go ahead.

I expected real heat for this, but I believe it.

*IF* she struck a peace officer, there can be no second standard for Congresspersons.

Actually, there already has been, as you or I would have been hauled off in plastic cuffs on the spot, but the Constitution forbids arrest of a Congressperson while Congress is in session.

Yes, she might have been profiled. Yes she might have been harassed. Both of which ought to have been dealt with. But neither excuse a physical attack on an officer.

[Just Me]

60. Resistence is still okay in your book, though, isn't it, Ben.

The line between "harassed" and "assaulted" still counts, I hope, in your book. I don't think she was merely "harassed", but rather "assaulted" in which case she had every right to take a stand for herself. Who else was there to take a stand for her,...other than herself.

We are talking about a woman of great integrity, far more principled and affectionate towards truth than the vast majority of congress-critters. She committed no crime walking into the building where she has been granted the authority by the voters to speak on their behalf. Correct? Those stopping her should be presumed to have committed a violation against not only her but also all those who count on her to represent their best interests.

I'll be damned if I give the "capitol police" the benefit of the doubt in these times, against this honorable woman. Moreover, focus on PETTY OFFENSES over the most egregious offenses against our nation, our people, our government, other nations, other peoples is simply ridiculous and exactly EXACTLY what the worst criminals would want.

FUCK THAT!!!!

I don't hate you anymore. I just feel disgusted that ANY benevolence would be asserted in circumstances proving a scintilla of existent problems.

[bigtree]

224. I am more moved by this line of reasoning than any other

You have expressed what I feel very well. Why should we give the Capitol police the benefit of the doubt? I don't think that whatever she did there was a threat to anyone. I'd say the same about any congressperson, on either side of the aisle. These are our elected legislators. The officer is there to protect them. This should have been dropped as soon as the officer found out it was a congressperson he accosted on her way to do the people's business. I suspect that nothing was hurt on the officer except his pride. I further suspect that there have been similar incidents involving other congresspersons which were not as inflated as this one which appears to be heading to formal charges.

I'm not going to put the officer's word before the legislator's in this case because I have no affinity or affiliation with the Capitol police. I'm quite certain they will continue to do their job without a hint of regard to how I feel, so I wonder at all of the snuggling up to the 'law'.

Whatever law, rule, proclamation, that keeps these officers from knowing what Rep. McKinney looks like after all of their past misconduct involving her, needs to be changed to require them to follow the requirements that teenage pages have to maintain as a condition of their employment: recognizing the faces of those who serve us there.

[Catrina]

52. I agree, how many US soldiers died in Iraq this weekend as a result of

criminal lies? I think it was nine. And how many Iraqis? I KNOW that Cynthia tried to stop that crime from happening. How many threads are there on that story, or the dead people of NOLA many of whose bodies are still rotting in the abandoned city because of criminal negligence for which NO ONE has been held accountable? Talk about crime and 'deserving to be arrested'!


But let's hang her for being a little upset at being man-handled by an inept and unqualified cop who so far, hasn't shown his face to tell us his side of the story, yet so-called progressives believe there must be something there, after all 'anonymous police sources' are saying so. :eyes:

[FloridaPat]

41. Isn;t there a law that congress people can't be charged with a crime

if they're on their way to or from a session?

She's a congress person. They are not the common folk. * is responsible for real dead people this week. Congress has been bought by the corporate biggies and hardly anyone is held responsible for treason. Go for the important stuff.

[slaveplanet]

58. yes there is

and I'm patiently awaiting Ben to cite this Law that congress members must comply.

[onenote]

174. Not applicable.

Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution gives members of Congress limited immunity from arrest. Limited. Specifically, it does not apply in cases of "treason, felony, or breach of the peace." Assault (if that is what McKinney is charged with, assuming she's charged with anything) falls within the common understanding of "breach of the peace" and thus there is no immunity.

onenote

[slaveplanet]

196. There are specific rules that concern detention too

and that does not mean they must comply with demands while en route to official functions. It has to do with seperation of powers and congressional supremacy. Thus they are to pass unhindered through those checkpoints.

They will have to prove she went well above any mere reaction, and into premeditative action for any charges they bring.

But with Bushco, anything may be possible

[Rowdyboy]

42. My only question....Why was the guard not trained to recognize her?

There are only 535 of them in all, and only a handful are black women. Since these women would be the most likely to appear out of place, one might expect officers would be trained to at least recognize them.

I'm not a particular fan of Cynthia McKinney, but if she's right, and the Capitol Police also refused to allow the Georgia state legislative caucus entry to Coretta Scott King's funeral, then she may have a point on racial profiling.

[benburch]

49. Facial recognition as a standard would be a great security problem.

All you would need to send a terrorist into the Capitol would be a dead ringer for a congressperson.

I think you can see the risk.

[Rowdyboy]

65. I'll admit I'm a bit unclear about what standards the Capitol Police

use to determine who is allowed to pass and who doesn't. I doubt that many congresspersons ever find it a problem, though, unless they're black women who oppose this administration loudly.

How often has this been a problem in the past?

[benburch]

75. I'm certain it has happened before.

People always try to get into their workplaces without their badges.

But I don't think anybody struck the cop (or were accused of having struck the cop.)

[Rowdyboy]

81. Once the videotapes are made public, we'll know for sure.....

And if they exist (and surely they do), they'll be released.

[benburch]

152. Precisely!

Why are people being so DENSE about the principle I was posting about??? I never said that I believed she did it! I said that *if* she did it, she deserves to be arrested, and people are treating me as though I had just called her a babykiller and given Karl Rove a "reacharound" at the same time.

[LiberalUprising]

260. Hey, if the shoe fits

eh ben?

[Karmakaze]

217. Yeah, much better that they rely on a small lapel pin...

I mean a persons face is much easier to duplicate than a lapel pin, right?

[mondo joe]

55. If they are supposed to rely on facial recognition why have a pin that

specifically designates them to go around the detector?

If the only people passing through the security check were congresspeople it might matter that only a handful are black women. But there are many more people passing through, of all races and genders.

Lastly, even if he did know her face, is it even possible he looked away for a second and didn't see her? Or her cell phone blacked his line of sight? Is it?

[Rowdyboy]

77. As I mentioned above, I'm not a particular fan of Rep. McKinney....

but, as a member of congress, she deserves a certain amount of respect from the Capitol Police.

To your final point...

"Lastly, even if he did know her face, is it even possible he looked away for a second and didn't see her? Or her cell phone blacked his line of sight? Is it?"

The incident is on tape. If she was out of line, the proof is there and we'll all see it together. At present, I prefer to believe that an inexperienced security guard made a fool of himself. I could well be wrong, but we won't know for sure for awhile.

[mondo joe]

89. I think there is ample opportunity for both of them to not have done as

well as they might.

[Rowdyboy]

93. Probably, the most cogent comment of the evening on the situation....

It was unfortunate, unnecessary and ridiculous. Yet it seems to have captured the media so we'll be hearing it for days.

[mondo joe]

96. More unfortunately, at one level, it captured the attention of DU.

And too many people, IMO, can't wait for the evidence before judging.

I think it's worth remembering that even good people can make mistakes. Bill Clinton was a great example of that. He really fucked up, and fell right into the hands of those out to get him, all on his own.

When my daughters tell me about some injustice at school I don't automatically assume they're right - I ask questions to learn more. Once you get past their hurt feelings, it sometimes turns out they were treated unfairly, sometimes they were the unfair one, and often there were just misunderstandings.

I'm grateful to McKinney for the good she's done, and I'd rather she was at no fault here. But if she was, she ought to be accountable.

[Rowdyboy]

104. Your entire post speaks for me....

We have no argument between us. Damn, I love DU because I can find good people here!

[slaveplanet]

46. Laws are different for congresspersons

please cite this exact LAW from code or constitution

The law demands that you comply with the officer

[benburch]

56. Not in this case.

Congresspersons are not exempt for the laws of the District of Columbia EXCEPT where specifically exempted (which they often are.)

They may not be arrested or held in jail while congress is in session, however, this does not mean that they get a pass for anything they do, they are just arrested when congress is NOT in session.

And they cannot be charged with a crime for things done on the floor of the house or senate, but this was not on the floor.

[slaveplanet]

61. CITE the damn law

[benburch]

63. A judge has that in hand already,

If the law did exempt Congressperson McKinney, the judge that signed the arrest warrant would never have done so!

This is why we have such things as warrants and judges.

I can no more cite DC law than you can cite paragraph 43 in Beowulf, but we both know that there is a paragraph 43, and pretending otherwise to make a debating point is unseemly.

[bpilgrim]

67. psst...

there is no 'arrest warrant' more rw spin you are repeating.

you should know better.

peace

[benburch]

69. Didn't AP just report that?

We'll see if they do.

If they don't, then obviously she did not strike the officer!

They have to make a prima facie case to get a warrant.

[bpilgrim]

74. Cynthia and her lawyer said there is no arrest warrant out

and if she struck him there would have been charges filed the same day.

i will take her word over the M$M all day everyday.

peace

[benburch]

80. We'll see what develops.

My posting was predicated upon there having been enough of a case to seek a warrant.

And if there was, I stand by it.

Strike a cop, get arrested.

[bpilgrim]

85. don't give the reTHUGs a hand knocking off one of our own

please

peace

[Media_Lies_Daily]

120. Well said...particularly the part about not believing the RW spin.

[novalib]

218. Isn't That Part of The Problem?

If laws really are different for Congresspersons, isn't that part of the problem?

Shouldn't Congresspersons live under the same laws the rest of us do?

[Catrina]

47. If a Capitol Hill cop abused a US Congresswoman he deserves to be

arrested.

I'm wondering why you are not listening to what Cynthia McKinney said about the incident and are more swayed by 'anonymous' police sources?

Why is this cop still anonymous? I'd like to know something about his background. That would make it easier to know whether to trust him or not. And what does HE have to say about the incident?? I have not heard that, just a lot chatter from 'spokespersons' who did not witness the incident.

Go Cindy!! This is a woman who has always spoken the truth. That's what got her in trouble, isn't it? Until there's some overwhelming evidence that she is not speaking the truth now, she has earned MY trust. The same cops who arrested and abused Cindy Sheehan for wearing a shirt with the number of dead troops on it, have certainly not earned my trust.

[benburch]

53. No argument.

But they are swearing out an arrest warrant according to the AP, and if so, they convinced a judge that they had a prima facie case.

If she thinks she was abused by the officer, she should pursue charges against him.

And Cindy Sheehan should seek charges against the officers who arrested her, too.

As for why he is anonymous, I think it just might be to prevent him from being harassed. From the depth of the emotion I see here, that is a realistic fear. But Congressperson McKinney and her lawyers know exactly who he is, so the lack of public disclosure is no hinderance to justice.

[Catrina]

62. Cops rarely have a problem convincing a judge to swear out a

warrant ~ and according to Cinthia's attorney, they are not doing that. The cops have passed the investigation along to the prosecutor's office. Unless there's been another development in this ever-changing story.

I hope she does sue him, but I'm sure she has better things to do unless of course there is an arrest and lies are told (that would never happen would it?) to try to get her.

I think it just might be to prevent him from being harassed.

Poor baby! If he just tells the truth and has some sort of evidence (which so far has not been presented) to back up his accusations, he has nothing to worry about. You're not dealing with the rightwing here. This side of the aisle doesn't use violence to settle things to my knowledge.

Otoh, why was Cynthia's ID revealed to the public? If you think the emotion on this board is heated, go to the rightwing boards if you want to see real emotion. Nothing gets them going more than getting close to 'getting' that 'ghetto slut' as Neil Boortz described her.

I think Cynthia has far more to fear from the right, than the cop does from anyone. If that's the reason for keeping his ID secret, then hers should have been also. Or could it be because he has a record of lying, or is a freeper, or something else that would, maybe, not look too great for them? As long as there are questions, we are free to speculate. Big tough cops who man-handle women, should not be afraid of the exposure this US Congressman has been subjected to imo.

[-..__...]

51. Just imagine the controvesry...

if the cop grabbed her by the ass instead of her arm?

Now that would be a newsworthy subject worth debating!

[AtomicKitten]

54. From what I understand, Ms. Kinney doesn't have a case,

She didn't have her ID on, and that's the problem. What she is expecting is special treatment. Her claims of racism really don't hold water since she violated protocol. Now had she been wearing her ID and was accosted ... but that's not what happened. And any physical contact was inappropriate and what she may now find to be illegal. The whole mess should be dropped.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

101. She WAS wearing her Congressional ID....which is much larger than...

...the lapel pin that she admits she was not wearing. Here are a couple of links to a Congressional ID card that looks to be wallet-sized...
-----------------------
Top half:

<>

Bottom half:

<>
-----------------------
And here is a link to a photo containing a lapel pin which is less than one inch in diameter:

<>
-----------------------

Tell me which of those is easier to see from a distance.

Yes, she was grabbed from behind by a security guard who claims he didn't recognize one of the fourteen black female Members of Congress.

How many white members of Congress have forgotten their pins and not been physically grabbed by one of the security guards?

Yes, "the whole mess should be dropped", but not for the reasons you stated.

[mondo joe]

131. 1. The lapel pin is required to bypass the dectectors; 2; Are you

certain she was wearing the ID?

I ask only because in her statement she says after she was stopped she showed him her ID. From that alone it's impossible to tell if she was wearing it or just had it with her.

There may be information from some other story - I'm just going by her statement.

3. If the pin is so unimportant why do you think it's required to bypass the detectors?

Thank you.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

193. "The lapel pin is required to bypass the detectors"? Where did....

...you read that? I've yet to see anything in writing that states anything along those lines. Got a link?

[AtomicKitten]

136. She was asked to show ID

and refused to stop. I can only surmise what she displayed was not adequate. I can't fault the guards for following protocol. Maybe people can't accept the notion that she was genuinely not recognized, but quite frankly I didn't recognize her either with her new look.

[onenote]

178. I've never seen any member of congress "wear" their ID

In over fifteen years of working with folks on the Hill. Members wear pins. Staff wear their IDs. I guess they feel like they'll look like geeks or something, but I've simply never seen a member wear their ID. They carry it in a wallet, purse, pocket, if they even bother to have it on their persons

[Media_Lies_Daily]

190. How many white Members of Congress are stopped in the same....

...way that McKinney was stopped and for the same reasons? Better yet, how many GOP Members of Congress are stopped for the same reasons?

[AtomicKitten]

203. You are clearly knowledgeable about that.

All I know is that she was not wearing the pin as per protocol, was asked to stop, refused to do so, the guard touched her on the shoulder, and she punched him - this account by her own admission today on CNN.

All the discussion here about whether or not she should have on or have to show which ID is really a moot issue. They have a certain protocol, the guards have a job to do, and I believe she went off the deep end, acted inappropriately, and now is making a huge stink over it.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

189. Did she refuse to stop or did she just fail to hear the guard?....

..IMHO, that's pretty lame about the new look....facial features don't change unless plastic surgery is involved.

What she displayed was her Congressional ID...why would that not be enough?

[AtomicKitten]

202. on CNN she said she heard him but thought she should be recognized

which indicates to me she purposely buzzed the guy. Sorry you find the fact that her new hairdo constitutes a new look, but I'm sure it didn't help matters.

The bottom line is she didn't follow protocol (was not wearing and did not show the proper ID), refused to stop (by her own admission), and then punched the guard when he touched her on the shoulder.

This scenario is pretty clear. I think people want to make excuses for her; if Delay had done the same thing people here at DU would be outraged.

[MadMaddie]

57. Another question I haven't heard addressed is how often has

this type of incident happened....how many times has any Congress person not been recognized and grabbed?

If we must break it down
How many white Congressman/women?
How many black Congressman/women?
How many women?
How many men?

Along with these statistics...we need the facts concerning the incident...there were probably witnesses...what do they say...?

Really there are too many unknowns to come to a conclusion..

If she broke the law...then she gets arrested.
If the officer overreacted and basically assulted her...then file charges...

[mondo joe]

66. Don't forget "How many times has any Congress person been

asked to stop".

From there you'd want to see how many didn't stop, and from there how many were grabbed.

[MadMaddie]

72. Exactly......

[bpilgrim]

59. If a Police Officer Assaulted a U.S. Congress person, he deserves arrest

nothing puts him above the law.

don't fall for the rw spin, ben.

peace

[mondo joe]

64. He certainly does - if he acted outside the law.

[izzybeans]

70. Except the officer impeded an official of the U.S. Congress from entering

the chamber. If this wasn't treason than it wasn't a crime. It doesn't excuse it. But many a fist fight in those halls have taken place over less. I'm sorry an officer can't take being poked with a cell phone. Poor baby.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2205158#2205201

[benburch]

76. One crime does not excuse another.

PERIOD.

[bpilgrim]

79. there is no other crime

PERIOD.

peace

[izzybeans]

82. NO excuse true, but a representative of federal law enforcement,

not this officer, those higher up the command are walking a dangerous tightrope here.

[B Calm]

78. This officer should be scolded out and publicly embarrassed!

[mondo joe]

84. You mean he stopped a Congressperson, and when shown ID let her

pass. I believe that is within the purpose of the job.

[izzybeans]

90. Maybe I misplaced something...if someone issued a warrent for

this then they are walking the tightrope, not this officer.

[deadparrot]

71. Indeed.

Well said; I agree. :hi:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

83. Thanks for continuing to stir the pot.

[benburch]

88. You are SO welcome!

http://www.mariquita.com.nyud.net:8090/events/JessicaStirringtheCauldron-med.jpg

[Sarah Ibarruri]

86. Exactly. If I hit an officer, I'd be in jail. nt

[Generic Other]

91. Would you have resisted an officer as a member of White Rose?

Just a theoretical question. A badge doesn't automatically guarantee all citizens' compliance. I hope I would never ever put the letter of the law above justice.

[bpilgrim]

92. ironic and sad

don't know what got into ben tonight :shrug:

peace

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

98. I Think He Actually Forged His Own Opinion, For His Own Reasons. Sad? NO.

Honorable and liberal? Absofuckinglutely.

The only thing sad I see is that his character and mental well being tonight is being criticized because he thought for himself. What a pathetic sentiment.

[bpilgrim]

102. he formed them on M$M BS as has been pointed out to him

he knows we don't throw our progressive reps under the bus on M$M or RW lies.

these thugs are now ASSAULTING and HARASSING OUR REPS, we must fight them every step of the way.

peace

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

107. Oh Enough With Labeling The Other Side Of This Issue As RW and MSM Lies

already.

Seriously. We can think for ourselves. We don't need to be fucking brainwashed to walk in lockstep like the GOP sheeple do. Your comments almost made it sound like you were trying to reprogram him, reassimilate him. Pretty scary stuff if ya ask me.

If someone wants to think that *GASP* Cynthia Mckinney shouldn't have hit a cop, well god bless em and more power to em. They don't need to be harrassed, ridiculed, called freepers, told they assisting the right, told they are spouting lies, or other immature, closeminded, provocative bullshit. Some on this board really need get a friggin grip already.

[bpilgrim]

113. the other side is RW and M$M BS thus far...

and the BS keeps changing, per usual...

sorry but not only will i take her word for it but i will defend her on a public board all day long.

you don't like it? tough.


more...
http://GlobalFreePress.com

peace

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

145. All I Know Is My Position Was Deduced From HER Statements, HER Actions,

and her interviews. So enough with the "other side is RW blah blah blah" garbage. Seriously.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

151. As reported and edited by the MSM, right?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

173. No, From Her Full Written Statements And LIVE Full Appearances.

Please, spare me the "it's the msm spin mannnnnnn, don't let em in your head mannnnnn" garbage. She has released several statements, held two goddamn press conferences, and had quite a lengthy interview with wolf blitzer today (of which was the nail in the coffin to me, in regards to making my opinion). So enough patronizing. There is more than enough unspun details available for me to cast an opinion. Though it may not line up with yours, it isn't any less worthy. Having the ability to think for ourselves is what seperates us from the neocon garbage. I'll be damned if I let you or anyone else declare I no longer have that right.

[proud2BlibKansan]

181. I am with you bpilgrim

[Media_Lies_Daily]

117. It works the other way, too, don't you think?....

...I've seen quite a few posts since this story broke absolutely trashing McKinney and anyone defending her.

We can think for ourselves, too, and what we're seeing is pretty ugly, IMHO.

Maybe folks on the other side of this story should also "get a friggin grip already".

[benburch]

121. Note that I NEVER trashed her.

I just said that she cannot be held above the law. PERIOD.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

128. I didn't say you did, did I? You need to take a walk away from your....

...keyboard and take a few deep breaths, IMHO.

[Dorian Gray]

188. Wow.

Reading this topic, I'm really disheartened.

Personally, I lean toward Ben's OP. If she's guilty of assault, she should be arrested and face the music. I don't know whether she is guilty or not yet. I can't jump down her throat and blame her, nor can I jump on the "White cop," and claim racist or GOP motivation for his actions.

All we know is that there was a scuffle. It's been blown up to ridiculous proportions. Everybody has an opinion (much like everyone has an asshole), and I can not believe the BS I'm seeing where if people disagree on this topic, they're treated like absolute scum.

It's truly amazing. I don't think that I've seen anything like this before, and I've read abortion debates on other boards and the Death Penalty threads on DU! Oh, and the smoking threads!

This is by far full of the most self-righteous people I've ever seen. (On both sides, of course.) But, in this particular thread, BB stated something reasonably, and he's being attacked. One poster said she HATED him? WTF?

[Charlie Brown]

194. Yes

I've had disagreements here before, too, but I usually walk away shaking hands. Before this, it has seemed the difference between "our side" and theirs is that we could discuss a wide array of issues rationally and objectively. That is one reason I am a progressive. This topic seems to have destroyed that cordiality, and all over an issue that has absolutely zero ramifications for the country and the progressive movement (McKinney is in NO DANGER of going to jail, or losing her seat, regardless of what happens with all this).

I think everyone here should learn some courtesy and treat other DUers with a bare minimum of respect, even those with whom they disagree.

I'll wait and see if McKinney is actually charged, then start deliberating the merits of the case. Otherwise, it's a non-issue. McKinney should likewise drop her end of the argument, wear her pin in the future, and learn to treat police officers with the same respect she expects of them.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

195. Point of order...if BB had stated something that everyone believed....

...was reasonable, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

Are you actually dismissing the possibility that McKinney is targeted by the Far Right? Do you think she has three bodyguards just for the heck of it? Is it even remotely possible, based on the death threats she receives on a near-daily basis, that she reacted to being grabbed from behind with a little more vigor than anyone that doesn't receive death threats?

Yes, this story has been blown up past any rational thinking, but that's not because of anything posted to this board. It all goes back to the confrontation between McKinney and the police officer and how it got reported by a GOP staffer to a media anxious to jump on the next big slab of fresh meat. And then it spiralled totally out of control.

[benburch]

198. So you believe...

that if she struck the cop she SHOULD be above the law?

Is that what you just said here?

Because that is the converse of my statement.

Go read it again and tell me what part of it you disagree with, please? The actual statement, mind you, not any of the ancillary things I did not say that people have been putting into my mouth.

Thanks in advance.

[Dorian Gray]

227. No... I'm not dismissing that, Media_Lies_Daily

What I AM dismissing is the RUDE responses people are getting about this topic. I'm happy to read and have a lovely discussion exchanging ideas here. What I can't stand is the mud slinging at anybody who might have come to a different conclusion. And after reading this thread last night, I had had enough of it.

I don't think that Ben was unreasonable in his assumptions, nor do I think you are. I believe we need to keep an open mind about this topic. That's why the anger and hatred that seems to be oozing out here is not only irrational, but truly disturbing! And if I weren't so bothered by it, I would find it laughable.

[benburch]

241. Laugh anyway.

It is tonic for the soul.

[Jigarotta]

95. good question.

maybe it will put a bit of perspective on all this kneejerk nonsense and baiting.

[benburch]

108. The two cases are not comparable in any sensible way.

The present case is simply resisting an officer who was conducting a door check that, once conducted, would have been the end of the matter. Congressperson McKinney was never in danger whatsoever from the officer. And the security is there because the Congress, of which she is part, so ordained.

The lawgiver cannot be above the law.

[Generic Other]

125. How do you know she is not in danger?

Many people see her as an "uppity" black woman. That puts her in danger in this country. Just like Cindy Sheehan is in danger. For speaking the truth Americans don't want to face. This is why these women are continually targeted. We should be suspicious of the level of animosity directed toward our outspoken leftwing women. We should rally against those who dare to attack them. Those who resist oppression are always in danger. Every day. In every way.

I invoke Sophie Schull's name to remind you who the real enemy is.

[benburch]

143. No cop is gonna shoot or harm Cynthia McKinney in the Capitol.

On video, no less!

[Jigarotta]

146. harm has already been done without a shot fired.

and it's not over yet.

She is being targeted, or do you think they don't play dirty sneaky games?

[slaveplanet]

206. Damn right she is being targeted

and not just by the rightwing.

we seen this game before.

[onenote]

180. so her response to danger is to not wear her id and go around security

and that makes sense, how?

Look, I don't know what happened, and neither does anyone else posting here. But nothing I've seen suggests the cop did anything wrong. Should he have recognized McKinney? Sure. But he didn't. And once it was clear he didn't, she should've responded to his request that she stop and identify herself.

onenote

[Media_Lies_Daily]

197. Sigh. Members of Congress and Congressional Staffers are....

...NOT required to go through security.

McKinney may not wear her pin because of the death threats she gets on a near-daily basis. To wear the pin just confirms her identity to an outsider wishing to do her harm as a Member of Congress.

Additionally, she may not have heard his request to stop if she was concentrating on something else like talking on the cell phone she had in her hand.

[benburch]

201. That is the biggest bullshit response in this whole thread.

You are saying she can do as she pleases and fuck with the rules?

If it were run like that, getting a bomb into the Capitol would be as easy as finding a look-alike for a member of Congress... No ID. No Pin. Just breeze right in because you look like Ted Kennedy?

Wearing the pin is what they agree to in order to avoid security.

You *do* want her to be above the law.

[onenote]

213. do you know what a congressional member's pin looks like?

I'd bet that very few people know what a congressional member id pin is, let alone what it looks like. Remember, McKinney isn't exactly a shrinking violet. If someone was out to get her, they'd know who she was and what she looked like; whether she had a pin on or not would make no difference.

onenote

[mondo joe]

251. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Wait a minute - are you saying the pin

is good enough to identify her, just not to a police officer?

[theHOMOagenda]

97. He should not have touched her...

don't touch people when attempting to get their attention; especially from behind.

His fault.... bad prodedure.

[johnnie]

100. According to the story he told her to stop three times

Should he have shot her or tasered her?

*Disclaimer - That, of course, is if he did tell her to stop three times. I'm not a troll.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

110. According to the story, she may have been talking on her cell phone...

...the one she allegedly used to "poke" the officer to get him to back off. If indeed she was talking on the phone she may not have 1) heard the officer, and/or 2) she may not have realized he was yelling at her.

According to the story we're hearing from people with sources close to McKinney, she was wearing her Congressional ID, even though she was not wearing her lapel pin.

According to the story, the security guard grabbed her arm from behind.

According to the story, those security guards are supposed to learn how to recognize all of the members of Congress. How is that he was not able to identify McKinney, one of only fourteen black female Members of Congress?

[paul_fromatlanta]

154. What does an officer do when guarding a secure facility

I hope that guards would try to stop someone from running into the capital building if they ignore repeated orders to stop. I would hope they would do a take down before they let that happen.

[YouthInAsia]

105. I get "detained" all the timne for simply DATING a black person.

I cant imagine actually BEING a black person. Why do I have a sneaky feeling that it it were a WHITE congressman in his $25,000 suit and fake grin HE wouldnt have even been stopped.

edited for spelling

[Swamp Rat]

106. Hey Ben, how do we know that the officer is not lying?

Maybe he whispered "I'm gonna get you nigger bitch," and Cynthia McKinney was just defending herself?

Maybe this was a set up from the get-go?

I agree with you that she is NOT above the law, but maybe it was the officer who broke the law?

If she was goaded by the police, then maybe this was another pre-emptive action on the part of the Bushler Nazis?

Nevertheless, I hope she can weather this storm because we need her - she is a real freedom fighter against the Amerikan Nazis = The Carlyle Group, DynCorp, and Halliburton, et al.

[benburch]

109. That is why we have trials.

To find out just that sort of thing.

And if the officer did act as you suggest he might have, I hold him to the exact same standard.

[Cookie wookie]

114. Her Statement

Statement of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney
on Capitol Hill Incident
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.

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

_____
How about making this the BFD that the criminals running the country love.....Jeez.

[johnnie]

118. At least she supports the Capitol Hill Police

There are a lot of people here who don't agree with her support.

[Berserker]

115. I want to see the Video

and we all know damn well there is one. Why has it not been shown? Let me guess.

[bpilgrim]

132. here's a video of her being challenged in her old hair do

http://www.house.gov/mckinney/ABvideo2.mov

peace

[benburch]

140. Fine, Billy. I stipulate they give her a hard time.

I never doubted that. (Read my original posting word for word - it is about the principle of law.)

But that is not a video of the present incident and this is absolutely immaterial to this discussion.

You might as well show video of Freedom Riders being harassed.

Nobody doubts that black people are pushed around!

[bpilgrim]

144. then why are you framing the debate like a winger in the middle of this

smear campaign?

wtf, over... u like stirring the pot at our owns expense?

you should know better.

peace

[flyarm]

116. and if she was set up???????????? and if men repugs go through

without their button and never get stopped and grabbed..what then?????????

just wondering..

if i am grabbed by any man or anyone from behind..they would not be poked with a cell phone..they would be hit with my elbow in the nose so hard they would need nasal surgery!

fly

[benburch]

119. If it was a setup, then that will come out.

There is video, after all. And there were witnesses.

Note that I predicated my posting on the work "IF".

[flyarm]

123. i understand the "if" thing..this whole thing is "if" as in..

woulda coulda shoulda..maybe , possibly..and we have 9 soldiers who are dead this past weekend ..and we waste time of "if's", maybe's and all..

well one thing i do know for sure..

1. we were lied to war
2. we have soldiers dying daily for those lies
3. * has been spying on Americans without warrants
4. many lies were told about 9/11
5. Valerie Plame a CIA agent was outed in a time of war
6. we are worried about "if's" with a congresswoman in the Capitol poking a capitol cop with a cell phone after showing her congressional I.D.??????????????????????????
7. wow..what priorities have evolved ............

[benburch]

126. But we dishonor ALL of those other things if we make exceptions to law.

If we do that we lose the moral standing to object.

Can't you see that?

[bpilgrim]

130. you are being played my friend

and i am very surprised it's coming from you.

peace

[benburch]

135. *You* are dishonoring the traditions of American Law.

You have decided that she gets a pass before the case is investigated or adjudicated.

It goes like this.

1. Something happens.
   
2. A police report is filed, either by an officer or a citizen.
   
3. It is investigated.
   
4. If there is a case in the eyes of the prosecutor, it goes before a judge.
   
5. If the judge believes that the prosecutor has a prima facie case, an arrest warrant is issued.
   
6. The innocent person is arrested.
   
7. The innocent person gets a hearing. If the judge at the hearing thinks there is no case he sets the person free.
   
8. There is a trial in which fair rules of evidence present a case for both sides to an impartial jury.
   
9. The jury decides based on the case presented and even has the power to nullify the law itself in their consideration.
   
10. Then and only then is the person guilty.
    
11. Then and only then does a judge decide what penalty pertains.
    
12. Then the guilty person still has the right of appeal if the rules of law were bruised in ANY step above.
    

Which of the above would you do away with Billy? I don't feel that even ONE of them is optional.

[bpilgrim]

137. BULLSHIT! she gets harassed DAILY and now these thugs are assaulting her

and you wanna fucking argue the 'law' to me, give me a break, this BS may work with folks who live in fantasy land and think there is no racism or targeting of blacks but i know better, i used to think you did, too.

i stand with cynthia.

peace

[benburch]

138. Which part of the process would you do without?

You need to answer that question.

[bpilgrim]

139. ah... the smear, lies, manhandling and racism

got it?

peace

[benburch]

141. Those are not a part of the process I described.

Are they?

[bpilgrim]

147. you ain't god hommie

and they are part of the process... they are what we all need to stand together on and fix not spread lame ass innuendo and helping reTHUGs frame the debate against one of our own, sheesh... wake up.

peace

[benburch]

155. What part of my original posting did you not understand???

I never judged her. I stated a principle that the laws cannot be ignored EVEN in her case. When we insist on that we destroy our moral authority!

[bpilgrim]

160. ah, leading with the victim being the guilty party just to stir the pot...

don't play dumb, it's very unbecoming of you.

peace

[benburch]

163. "if" implies doubt.

At least it did in the English I learned.

At this point I feel you are just arguing so as not to concede a point you have lost.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

199. You would be very wrong in making that assumption.

[benburch]

200. I wasn't addressing you. nt

[bpilgrim]

246. IF implies a CONDITION - which you ENDORSE - no matter the circumstance

you are willing to throw her under the BUS even though she is being set up and harassed simply because reacted to being GRABBED inappropriately.

YOU are simply playing into the RW hands, pipe down.

peace

[Media_Lies_Daily]

157. American law ceased to exist the day the NeoCons took total control....

...of the U. S. government with the help of the U. S. Supreme Court.

Or is that something you choose to ignore as having any impact on life in America today?

[flyarm]

153. what law?? no laws have been broken when no charges have occurred??

nothing is disrepected..its all hyperbole... no laws have been invoked here to have been broken... this is all conjecture ..

what is disrespected is ignoring the laws that already have been broken that we are ignoring while nonsense is being discussed..we have real problems..real laws that we "know" have been broken.. and we waste time talking about laws that have not been charged as a crime?

wow...........

i am off to discuss real laws that have been broken..bye

[Jigarotta]

148. sure it will, being the just society we are... :( n/t

[0007]

122. Cough cough.....from all folks, this is unbelievable.

[FogerRox]

124. What if Cyinthia got drunk and shot a lawyer in the face?

Just like CHENEY?

And Ben, she held 2 news conferences.

It seems you are pretty sure she STRUCK the officer.

Once it is known exactly what happened, then I will judge.

[benburch]

129. No, that remains to be proven.

Again, I used "If" to qualify this.

Though people have interpreted what I wrote to mean that I have already judged her.

[dave502d]

127. theHOMOagenda got it right.n/t

[bpilgrim]

133. VIDEO - some things will never change

http://www.house.gov/mckinney/ABvideo2.mov

the racism, smears & manhandling of our congress people needs to STOP, now.

peace

[benburch]

142. That is not a video of this incident.

And it is unfair of you to present it as if it were.

[bpilgrim]

150. it represents a pattern of harassment by the cap police against her

she is a black, progressive, woman, being harassed daily, she doesn't need other progressives framing the debate against her.

And it is unfair of you to do so.

peace

[benburch]

156. The "framing" here is all yours, it seems.

I stated a principle of law.

[bpilgrim]

161. yeah, it's all in our heads ben...

good night

peace

[LisaL]

169. Considering she apparently refuses to wear ID, she doesn't do

much to stop the harassment, does she? I mean, what exactly is her objection to having an ID? Maybe she feels others who don't wear IDs are not stopped, I don't know. But if having an ID is a requirement, why not follow the rules and have one on?

[Ksec]

134. eh I think she did good

The cop snatched her arm, she reacted like anyone does when grabbed. No biggy. Its a setup.

[DELUSIONAL]

149. Oh &*&^^%$%$$%%%%^^

[lala_rawraw]

158. She is a 6 term congresswoman... i find it hard to

imagine that she was not "recognized" and given that she is a woman who was manhandled by a man, i don't care who that man is, damn straight she should have pushed back. ask yourself, what if a man, in police uniform or not grabbed and manhandled your wife, what would you do? remember, these are the same people who arrested a citizen for a tshirt with a number on it... fear tactics, intimidation, violence... what would you have a woman do, stand there and cry? i luv ya ben, but i must disagree!!!

[benburch]

164. You are totally free to disagree.

But I was taught that you NEVER resist a cop unless you want to have the book thrown at you. ESPECIALLY if you are innocent of anything.

[Charlie Brown]

165. to be fair, what should the cop have done?

If he honestly did not recognize McKinney, and she continued (with her back to him, I guess), after he called out, what on earth option did the cop have besides touching her? It would be ridiculous to expect the cop to trust to chance that she was authorized when she was not wearing the ID pin.

Why is it only McKinney who is entitled to the benefit of the doubt here?

[bpilgrim]

167. get in front of her, so she could see him and HE see her...

the whole thing would have been avoided... this is just par for course for black people all across our fine land though, no respect.

peace

[LisaL]

171. And she could have stopped when he called for her to stop,

if avoiding the whole thing was what she wanted.
Which I don't think she did want.

[Charlie Brown]

177. If she was moving away quickly

that might be easier said than done. The cop could hardly spend all day chasing her around the complex while she talked on her phone.

"this is just par for course for black people all across our fine land though, no respect."

Maybe, but McKinney did not help the situation by not wearing the pin. I would think reps who have been in office as long as her would be used to draconian security conditions by now. Why risk a confrontation?

[LisaL]

166. If you are going to do shit like that, I am pretty sure you would

be arrested. Resisting a police officer and poking him or whatever while he tries to stop you will end up in your arrest.
Which of course is your prerogative. Just don't be surprised if you end up arrested.

[paul_fromatlanta]

170. what should the cop do if she refuses three orders to stop?

This isn't a 7/11 this is an important government building she was running into.

[qanda]

162. This is an honest question and hopefully will receive an honest answer

Why did you need to start this thread? There have been many thread that have expressed this very sentiment and what you are saying could have been added to those. I just wonder why this needed to be reiterated tonight. Of course you are allowed to post whatever you want, I just don't understand why you seem to be flaming the fires of this whole controversy.

[merh]

175. Your post answers your own question.

IF she had struck him, she would have been arrested on the scene.

God, how dense are folks anyway?

[benburch]

179. Actually, they could not arrest her while Congress is in session...

It is in the Constitution.

[onenote]

182. actually they could == see post 168

But the fact that they didn't arrest her on the spot proves nothing about what happened.

onenote

[benburch]

184. Point taken.

Thanks! And I agree.

[merh]

192. I guess you have never been a cop before.

Cops are trained that as soon as there is an assault (someone striking you) you are to diffuse the situation and make an immediate arrest.

It proves that the "strike" was not a "strike" -- no jury is going to believe that McKinney struck the cop and he let her go.

It may not prove anything, but it sure the shit presents reasonable doubt. :hi:

[onenote]

214. And I guess you've never been around the Capitol Hill police

First and foremost their mission is protect the Capitol and the members of Congress. In this instance there was a confrontation with an individual not immediately identified as a member. Once that member identified herself as a member of Congress, the CHP had no reason not to allow her to go about his or her business; she posed no threat. However, that doesn't mean that they might not decide to pursue charges after the fact based on her behavior.

onenote

[merh]

215. What you just described is probably what happened

and does not describe a crime, in any shape or form. She did no harm, she posed no threat. Had she done harm, had she assaulted the cop, she would have been considered a threat (to her own safety, to the cops safety and to the public safety) and she would have been arrested on the spot.

It will be a hoot to see if Ms McKinney is arrested for poking an officer, that doesn't equate to an assault unless she harmed him. I am not familiar with any jurisdiction that has a law that makes it a crime for one person to touch another. Are you?

What will be even more interesting is to discover why the cop didn't recognize her. Is it "they all look alike"? 14 of 535 faces that have to be remembered are darker than the others and she has a history with the department, having made complaints about their treatment of her and failure to recognize her. The pin and the ID badges can be forged or stolen so the capitol police cannot rely solely on them, their must be face recognition.

Let's put it this way, I would not mind being her attorney and I would demand a jury trial (everyone is entitled to one if they face the possibility of losing one day of liberty) and if the press wanted to have cameras in the courtroom, I would welcome them with open arms.

[onenote]

226. what law school did you go to?

YOu don't need to harm someone to be charged with, or found guilty of, assaulting them. Pretty basic law. Here's the federal law provision that I'm guessing McKinney would be charged under, if she is charged:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 7
§ 111. Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees

(a) In General.— Whoever—
(1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties; ....
where the acts in violation of this section constitute only simple assault, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, and in all other cases, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

The law distinguishes between "simple" assault and "aggravated" assault. "Simple" assault encompasses the use or threat of use of physical force even where it results in little or no injury

onenote

[merh]

254. No law school

I just know how to do research and read.

1565 Forcible Act Required -- 18 U.S.C. § 111 -- Application of Statute to Threats

Section 111 of Title 18 punishes anyone who "forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates or interferes with any person designated in 18 U.S.C. § 1114 or who formerly served as a person designated in § 1114, while engaged in or on account of the performance of his/her official duties." Force is an essential element of the crime. Long v. United States, 199 F.2d 717 (4th Cir. 1952). Whether the element of force, as required by the statute, is present in a particular case is a question of fact to be determined from all of the circumstances. The Long case indicates that a threat of force will satisfy the statute. Such a threat which reasonably causes a Federal officer to anticipate bodily harm while in the performance of his/her duties constitutes a "forcible assault" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 111. See also United States v. Walker, 835 F.2d 983, 987 (2d Cir. 1987); Gornick v. United States, 320 F.2d 325 (10th Cir. 1963). Thus, a threat uttered with the apparent present ability to execute it, or with menacing gestures, or in hostile company or threatening surroundings, may, in the proper case, be considered sufficient force for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111. These judicial decisions suggest a similar construction of the statutory words "resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates or interferes with."

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01565.htm

As I said, this one would be fun in front of a jury. Officer X, what did Ms. McKinney do when you grabbed her? She poked you? Did you feel threatened? Did it hurt, did you require medical attention, a band aid, aspirin? Did you arrest her on the scene? Why not?

[merh]

187. You need to do some reading

Privilege From Arrest

This clause is practically obsolete. It applies only to arrests in civil suits, which were still common in this country at the time the Constitution was adopted. 376 It does not apply to service of process in either civil 377or criminal cases. 378 Nor does it apply to arrest in any criminal case. The phrase ''treason, felony or breach of the peace'' is interpreted to withdraw all criminal offenses from the operation of the privilege. 379

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/21.html#f376

History confirms the conclusion that the immunity is limited to arrest. See opinion of Mr. Justice Wylie in Merrick v. Giddings. The cases cited in support of the contrary view rest largely upon doubtful notions as to the historic privileges of members of Parliament before the enactment in 1770 of the statute of 10 George III, c. 50.3 That act declared that members of Parliament <293 U.S. 76, 83> should be subject to civil process, provided that they were not 'arrested or imprisoned.' When the Constitution was adopted, arrests in civil suits were still common in America. 4 It is only to such arrests that the provision applies. Williamson v. United States, 207 U.S. 425 , 28 S.Ct. 163.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=293&invol=76

'567. In the greater number of the constitutions it is expressly provided that members shall be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective houses, and in going to and returning from the same, in all cases ex- <207 U.S. 425, 445> cept 'treason, felony, and breach of the peace.'

Since from the foregoing it follows that the term 'treason, felony, and breach of the peace,' as used in the constitutional provision relied upon, excepts from the operation of the privilege all criminal offenses, the conclusion results that the claim of privilege of exemption from arrest and sentence was without merit, and we are thus brought to consider the other assignments of error relied upon.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=207&invol=425

I would think striking a police officer would be a breach of peace and she was subject to arrest at that moment, especially in these post 9/11, must be secure days.

Enjoy the reading :hi:

[Skip Intro]

176. We don't know yet what really happened, do we? n/t

[Janice325]

183. Can we please just stop posting about this!

Aren't there much more important things to worry about?
This is ridiculous.I don't believe anyone who has posted here was there when the "incident" happened.
Jeez, Louise! :banghead:
It's frustrating and disheartening to see so many DU'ers get so polarized over this situation.
(Gonna go leave now and not contribute anything further to this already very long thread).

[NaturalHigh]

185. K & R.

I honestly cannot believe how many feel the need to defend McKinney IF she really hit a cop.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

186. Agreed.

Otherwise, we have another politician who is acting as if they are above the law.
We've got way to many of them already.

[Name removed]

204. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[earth mom]

205. Interesting how McKinney supposedly breaks the law and should be arrested

no ifs ands or buts....

but people who break the law and come to the U.S. illegally should not be held to the same standard.

Nice DOUBLE standard. :eyes:

[YouthInAsia]

207. what, are cops beyond reproach? She didnt punch him in

the face or smash him over the head with a basball bat. She smacked him in the chest with her cell phone. Big f'in deal. No, she SHOULDNT be arrested. If she had attacked him, fine, but swatting at someone is not an arrestable offense.

[benburch]

220. Actually, it is.

I invite you to go up to somebody on the street with police watching and swat that person.

Let me know what happened after you make bail.

[YouthInAsia]

236. there's a huge difference between swatting someone

and punching someone. No, I dont believe youd go to jail for simply swatting at someone. The cops might say something to you, but I doubt they're gonna arrest you.

[benburch]

237. It is against the law.

If you swat me, and a cop sees it, and I want you arrested, you get arrested.

Long ago in High School I worked in the ticket box at a drive-in theater. A customer, unhappy that the only spots were at the back of the lot came out and demanded a refund, which we could not do since there were spots still. He banged on the glass of the booth. We called the cops. He was arrested for battery. Had he hit one of us it would have been assault, too.

[rman]

209. Question is, did she "punch", "poke", "lash out" or "struck" -

and how hard?
Opinions on this differ, but opinions are dime a dozen.

[benburch]

210. You cannot even bump an officer. nt

[symbolman]

212. Sure you can

You just need a REALLY fast CAR after that.. one that can outrun a RADIO or a helicopter :)

I've fucked with cops my whole life, they've beaten the shit out of me on many occaisions (some deserved), I've smacked them and they'd smacked me, they've thrown me in cells that were rooms that FLUSHED every 18 minutes completely in the dark with a towel for warmth (I'd had to stand up every 18 minutes or get soaked, then lay on concrete.. I wouldn't have put bo bo the gorilla in that room, but there I was, for how long I don't even know.

I got lots of stories, gonna write a book some day called "Officer Friendly" about all my experiences with cops, for like Cynthia I liked to say NO to police, just for the fuck of it, because I came back from the military during Nam and thought I was FREE to do whatever I wanted as long as I harmed no one, and they thought otherwise.

I used to outrun them with my 440 Challenger at least once a month, did it many times on motorcycles too. Filled up my whole back seat of my car with parking tickets ripped in half and beer cans.

Life used to be a lot more fun when these little sparrow farts didn't think they were the ROman GUARD. My pal and I used to get pulled over when drunk driving was fashionable, back when they didn't arrest you UNTIL you'd COMMITTED A CRIME, not this Pre CRIME shit you see now. We'd get out of the car laughing and saying things like, "Can I have my bullet, Andy?" (Barney Fife was not allowed to load his gun), and when the cops told my fun pal to empty out his beer he complied by guzzling it.. the cop told him then, "ON THE GROUND BOY.." but didn't arrest us, WHY? Because we were really NO DANGER.

And that's the Point, we're a society of Scardy Cats now, ready to cringe when some punk with a tin badge talks MEAN to us.

That's BULLSHIT, THEY WORK FOR US! WE PAY THEIR SALARIES, and they are TRAINED to BEHAVE and THEY above ALL must obey the LAW. (I took a few to court for that, some had no reason to kick my ass and paid for that)..

Proper Authority is to be repected, IMPROPER Authority is to be FOUGHT.

And that's what Cynthia did and that's why I'm RIGHT BEHIND HER. Did she SHOW the cop her ID? Yep.

Was he BLIND?

Apparently.

Don't let these little chickenshit banty roosters leather wearing freaks tell you what to do if YOU don't want to do it. You ARE FREE to do as you want, as long as you are ready to accept the consequences, of which I always have :)

As they say in the can, "If you can't do the TIME, don't commit the CRIME.."

Was McKinny committing a CRIME before she was ABDUCTED and ASSAULTED by this cop?

NOPE.

[Freddie Stubbs]

216. "If" is the operative word in your sentence

We don't yet know if she actually did strike the officer.

[benburch]

222. Thanks for getting it.

You are one of the few.

[av8tor05]

219. Here. here.

[Mr_Spock]

223. Technically I agree, but simple assaults are usually handled in person

...it is usually advisable in a situation where a simple misunderstanding occured to handle the situation outside of the courtroom - instead of tying up the courts over something so stupid.

IF these people had a running fight or some sort of grudge - maybe - but a simple misunderstanding?

Never would happen if she WASN'T a politician - I see this sort of thing happening locally amongst childish politicians, but some guy will pull a gun at the bar and the owner who knows he's drunk will simply kick the guy out & bar him. Politics is childish for sure.

Bush's spying is planned, deliberate and he hasn't stopped doing it even though he knows it is wrong AND illegal. There is very little to compare about these instances.

[centristo]

230. i just posted something similiar

good to see some people see things clearly.

[jukes]

231. patently naive

:patriot: :popcorn:

[in_cog_ni_to]

232. No, the cop shouldn't have grabbed her. He had no right

to put his hands on her. He could have waited for her to show her ID. He chose not to. He, instead, chose to manhandle her. She should sue him.

[benburch]

238. If she refused to stop or comply, he had every right to physically detain.

We don't have the video of the event yet, so we cannot be certain of anything.

But this was a security checkpoint. What do you think a police officer should do in such a case? Just let it slide that somebody blew past without proper ID?

No cops are given the authority to use necessary force in such an event. The only question is if she complied or not, and if the officer's use of physical force was justified in this case. Perhaps she DID stop when asked and complied with the officer. If so, he was in the wrong. But if she did not comply and did not stop, I would HOPE any officer would stop her (or anybody else doing the same thing.)

Note please the liberal us of *if* in the above. All is predicated on evidence of the actual event.

[mondo joe]

242. If she was mistreated I ful support her suit.

If she mistreated him, I support him pressing charges.

(Though in fact based on the limited amount known, my hunch is they should just apologize to each other and move on.)

[Tsiyu]

233. We should be listening to Cynthia McKinney, not threatening to

lock her up.

Law is made for humans, not humans for the law.

If pushing her cellphone into a cop is a true threat to our society, we have reached the absolute low point.

My belief is that some men cannot stand the voices of women, and they will do anything to silence them, to eliminate their words. Women's perceptions scare men. A Black woman's perceptions scare them even more.

But we need our women to speak out loudly and clearly if our nation is to be healed. When I saw Cindy Sheehan hauled out of the SOTU like a dog, and I see the way McKinney is being manhandled by cops and the press, and I see women's opinions practically spit on while their manner of hair and dress are matters of immediate concern, I realize that we have become like Saudi Arabia in many ways. Women are cursed into silence.

But I don't think American women are ready to take this one for the team. I think we're ready to say: listen. We're going to keep on telling you the truth whether you like it or not.

[benburch]

239. Thank you for putting words in my mouth.

That was unseemly.

I never made a single threat. I just said she must not be above the law.

Do you now argue the converse? That she SHOULD be above the law?

And this is not about women no matter how desperately you want it to be.

[Tsiyu]

244. I'm never desperate

nor do I put words in others' mouths.

If Cynthia is found guilty, she will be incarcerated, no?

As a female, viewing this nation and the way Cynthia and Boxer and Thomas and Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Heinz-Kerry and other females are treated by the press and by even Democrats, I am convinced there is a tremendous inability for many to hear women in a rational way.

I don't know why this is, nor do I blame you or any particular person for this problem, but it is a problem.

"Silence her!Off with her head!" The words used to describe any brave woman speaker today rival those used during the Dark Ages. Worse, they are cursed and their words and worth spit on or hidden. Your OP is very rational and steadily-paced, but it still focuses on the wrong of the woman, rather than the wrong of what is being done to her.

[flashdebadge]

235. AMEN! I contacted the D.C. US District Atttorneys office to urge arrest .

if she is guilty. I will not sit by and provide an opportunity for the other side the point a finger at us and say "see, they don't have any respect for the rule of law". We're better than that folks.

[lumberjack_jeff]

243. The rules have changed. The VP shot a guy in the face then jokes about it.

The old rules are no longer operative.

'Nuff o' this high-road, playing by the rules shit.

[benburch]

253. The person he shot was not a law officer trying to detain him.

Totally different situations.

Though he DID abuse his office by holding off the sheriff who wanted to question him until he was no longer drunk, and needs to be impeached for that.

An accidental shooting in no way compares with assault on a police officer.

[lumberjack_jeff]

255. You're right. There's no blood nor hospitals involved in the latter. n/t

[bpilgrim]

245. IF the Cop ManHandled her by touching her Inappropriately does he Deserve

arrest?

peace

[benburch]

247. Of course!

Nobody is above the law.

We have to DEMAND that.

[bpilgrim]

248. so they both should be arrested if both conditionals are true?

:shrug:

peace

[benburch]

249. Of course!

Why on earth would you think otherwise?

[bpilgrim]

250. well, i believe in mitigating circumstances and so does our law...

we don't live in a black-n-white world.

do you get it now?

peace

[benburch]

252. Nope.

It is you who don't get it at all.

On this one, Billy, you couldn't be more wrong.

[merh]

261. it is you that is missing the point, ben

and hopefull you have learned to look at all the facts and all the possibilities before making sweeping judgments or posting threads such as this.

To boil it down, she could have been arrested that day, she had no constitutional protection. If she had struck or really assaulted the cop, she would have been arrested on the spot.

[Hutzpa]

257. You must be blinded by anger......

It does NOT matter if that officer acted inappropriately! The law demands that you comply with the officer, and then FILE A COMPLAINT. And being a Congressperson, that complaint would absolutely have been heard. (She could also have held a press conference!

Can you hear yourself or does someone has to remind what you sounded like. It seems to me you anger is deep and when angers are this deep its considered Bigotry....just my opinion!



:spank: