My $.02 on Rep. McKinney

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

Since I've already been labeled a freeper on this one, I might as well go ahead and make a post of my own on this one.

Here are the undisputed parts of the situation:

1) Rep. McKinney was not wearing her lapel pin, as proper protocol asks all MCs to do. She does not refute this.

2) Rep. McKinney was asked to stop three times by the officer. She did not.

3) The officer touched or grabbed Rep. McKinney somewhere and then she hit him. Details of where she was touched and how she hit him are unclear, but those basic facts are not under dispute.

4) This one seems to be a common misconception, but Capitol Police are not required to know all MCs on sight. No one is. That is why they wear lapel pins. If someone can prove me wrong, go ahead and do so, but don't bother citing Rep. McKinney or her lawyer as a source. I'm sorry, but someone trying to cover their own ass isn't exactly unbiased or credible. There is a very long history of politicians and lawyers making statements like that which turn out to be completely untrue. You could make an encyclopedia on the Bush administration's comments alone.

5) Striking an officer of the law is a felony.

Honestly, I don't understand how this is really all that disputable. There's very little in this case that's fuzzy or unclear. Rep. McKinney was asked to stop three times by a police officer who was tasked with ensuring the security of the entrance to the House Office Building. His job is to make sure that no one that enters the building is carrying any kind of weapon.

Perhaps now it is relevant that I recall for you the incident a couple of years ago when a toy gun was brought through security and the entire Capitol was put on lockdown because they didn't catch the person as they were coming through. http://govtsecurity.securitysolutions.com/ar/security_capitol_police_change/index.htm

I'm not quite sure how else, after asking her three times, the police officer was expected to get her to stop other than by grabbing her (if he even grabbed her). No matter what, Rep. McKinney reaction was completely unreasonable. You do not hit anyone who merely grabs your arm without finding out what's going on, especially just a few feet from police officers, so even if she didn't know it was a cop, that's unacceptable. You learn not to hit people in kindergarten. If she did know it was a cop, there's no grey area here at all - not that there really is in any other circumstance either.

If you think it's racism, please feel free to find a white person and conduct your own experiment. You can report your findings from jail, because that's where you'll wind up if you try to bypass security at the Capitol.

The law is clear. You are required to go through security unless you are wearing proper identification showing that you are a Member of Congress. Further, no one is allowed to strike an officer. Based on the facts that neither side is refuting, there is no debate here. She violated the first law stated and she violated the second law stated. Case closed.

I truly don't understand where this even starts to be debatable, except where fact #4 comes into play. But even if I were to be wrong on fact #4, and even if he were supposed to be able to identify Rep. McKinney on sight, aren't security guards supposed to err on the side of caution? And shouldn't Rep. McKinney still have done what the guard asked her to do - which was take what is literally less than a minute to stop and go through the security gate - and THEN, if she were really that perturbed, file a report with the Capitol Police later? Further, Rep. McKinney also just drastically changed her hairstyle. Given that, you honestly don't think you could make an honest mistake there? Hell, I've had to do double takes of close, personal, life-long friends that have changed their hairstyle that much. Is it really so unreasonable that someone wouldn't recognize what amounts to almost a complete stranger, and especially when you encounter hundreds, if not thousands, of them on a daily basis?

We demand that Republicans not be treated as "above the law" - I'm not quite sure why we're expecting something different here.

Edits for typos
Edited to add "or grabbed" to fact #3 to avoid appearance of "spin"

[Virginia Dare]

1. Well articulated, thanks. n/t

[butterfly77]

132. I refuse to respond one way or the other until...

I see the tape.

[acmavm]

2. Are you feeling masochistic today or what?

:popcorn:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. I'm masochistic every day.

I don't know why, but I always feel the need to cut through BS, even when I'm severely outnumbered or outranked. It's probably why I got into politics.

[movonne]

47. And you think if she was a white,male,repub, congressperson this

would have happened..it smells like a right wing conspiracy to me...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

50. I've been with white male Democrats that have been stopped.

Quite prominent ones too.

And as far as the Capitol Police goes, they went after Congressman Bill Young's wife, and he's one of the most powerful Republicans there are. Further, they didn't back down when he went after them either.

[Solomon]

177. So the only valid explanation in your book is sheer unadulterated

"arrogance" of McKinney. (The current talking point- actually the perenial talking point when it comes to blacks who don't know their place. Whites are never arrogant. They are confident, but never arrogant.)

It's okay to assume that McKinney is just down right stupid, more stupid in fact than the cop. She had no other reason than she has this chip on her shoulder and she's arrogant. "She's playing the race card".

Riiiiiiggghhht!

That's where the bias really kicks in. You wax ad nauseum about white men getting stopped, but if there were an altercation, you would never make the same assumptions about a white man that you make with this woman. He wouldn't be arrogant and stupid, there would have to be some other reason. Maybe something was wrong with the cop perhaps?

It's so easy for you to believe that she's just itching for a fight against the most threatening, vindictive, brutal, and downright nasty administration that ever existed on the planet. That's real stupid. But you have no problem regarding her as stupid, do you?

Just scratch a little bit. That's all you have to do in america, and that same old problem just will never go away.

[Name removed]

180. Deleted message

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

[Karenina]

188. "Uppity" black woman = arrogant ass...

Cynthia McKinney's run-in with a Capitol police officer isn't the only recent case where an African-American lawmaker has accused government officials of racial profiling. In February, several members of the Georgia General Assembly were denied entry to the main area where Coretta Scott King's body was on public view. Congressmember McKinney addressed the incident in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Monday.

* Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN, April 3, 2006.

Today is the 38th anniversary of the assassination of Coretta Scott King's husband, Dr. Martin Luther King. We speak with one of those State Legislators denied entry to see the body of Coretta Scott King at the Georgia Capital. "Able" Mable Thomas is a Georgia State Representative.

* Rep. "Able" Mable Thomas, Georgia State Representative.

+++++++++

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE: First of all, I think all of us, including Congresswoman McKinney, respect the Capitol police and respect them for their responsibility and their job. But I believe that she is quite accurate in the fact that there are very few of us who happen to be African American women, and there are very few of us who would be so, if you will, difficult to be remembered, if you will, or to be able to be noticed.

And frankly, many of us get either confused or asked for our I.D. or treated in a manner that is not necessarily accepting. And in this incident it was unfortunate. But it is the role of the Capitol police, whom we respect, to basically know the members of the United States Congress.

And if you are rushing toward a vote, a House vote -- and I think people should understand we have 15 minutes to cast a vote no matter where you might be in the entire capital of Washington, D.C. You might be in meetings off the Hill. You still have 15 minutes to vote. It's very difficult then to be stopped, while the clock is ticking, for to you cast your vote.

AMY GOODMAN: Has this ever happened to you, where you were not recognized?

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE: Oh, on several occasions. And, of course, you have to suffer the indignity and sometimes handle it in a way that you don't care to handle it, because of the fact that you believe that you've served in the United States Congress and that you should be identifiable. So there is merit to the points that she is making. And there certainly may some concerns about securing the Capitol, which we understand has taken a whole different tone after 9/11.

But I think cooler heads can address this question in a way other than the criminal justice system of issuing an arrest warrant for a member of the United States Congress, who was within her right to be in the building and was within her right to be rushing toward the House floor to vote, as I understand the facts, and certainly should have had the courtesies of the Capitol police, as we should extend courtesies. So why can't this be resolved, where we learn who each other happens to be and we improve the picture book, if you will, and the training, so that we all can be fully identified.

There is no requirement, by the way, for any member to have an I.D. We do have them. But we may have been rushing from somewhere and not carrying the I.D., and there is no requirement for us to have a pin, which is our identifying pin, which I happen to be wearing at this time. But there is no requirement, as a understand it, for members to have that at this time.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/04/1419259

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

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

[Karenina]

197. Unfortunately, I'm reading what you're typing...

but I'm not quite sure why I bother...

On to your Bullet Point #2:

In has NOT been determined that Rep. McKinney realized the guard was speaking to her. Was she talking on her cell phone at the time? Her voice would certainly be another clue in identifying her. It IS rather distinctive.

BP #3:

"The officer touched or grabbed Rep. McKinney somewhere and then she hit him."

Details of where she was GRABBED are not available, nor is it clear whether she hit, punched, struck, slapped, smacked, poked with cell phone or used her arm to get him off her.

BP #4: See post 188

BP #5: Status TRUE

Your entire post downplays the police assault and frames every sentence in a manner designed to establish Rep. McKinney's indisputable guilt.

"You do not hit anyone who merely grabs your arm without finding out what's going on, especially just a few feet from police officers, so even if she didn't know it was a cop, that's unacceptable."

:rofl::rofl::rofl: Get out of the village much? :rofl::rofl::rofl:

"But even if I were to be wrong on fact #4, and even if he were supposed to be able to identify Rep. McKinney on sight, aren't security guards supposed to err on the side of caution? And shouldn't Rep. McKinney still have done what the guard asked her to do - which was take what is literally less than a minute to stop and go through the security gate - and THEN, if she were really that perturbed, file a report with the Capitol Police later?"

Congressional pages - TEENAGERS - are REQUIRED to KNOW EVERY FACE IN CONGRESS. "Caution" would been the realization that approaching a distracted, hurried possible member of the House would best be handled face-to-face so EACH PERSON WOULD KNOW WHO WAS BEING ADDRESSED. He didn't ASK her to do ANYTHING. He yelled assuming she realized he was addressing her. She is NOT required to go through the metal detector. See again post 188.

Rep. McKinney has been in the House for 12 YEARS. She has filed numerous complaints about the manner in which the Capitol Police have treated her. Her PICTURE has been posted in their booth to help them overcome their instinct to harass people they seem to have trouble telling apart or tend to assume don't belong there.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

199. Self delete

I'm just putting you on ignore. It's not worth it.

[ShortnFiery]

246. Hey Vash, to some extent - technically - We are ALL racists ...

That "calling each other names" and "hurt" memes on both of our sides is really a distraction.

We all stereotype. Remember when you continued to say, "PROVE IT!" when I continued to assert that I just happened (I respect folks but don't do DU meet ups) to KNOW quite a lot about security from my background?

I wanted like hell to open up, but I'm a very private person.

Thank you OODLES to the person who printed the statement by Rep. Jackson Lee. :yourock: :hi:

Yes, it's not racist to say that people more easily recognize the the facial differences in members of their own race (see any Sociology Text), but it's also "a fact" that the Capitol Hill Police are taught facial VICE hairstyle recognition, and in essence, FAIL at their job when they GRAB a *six term* Congresswoman from behind.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

247. No, I told you to cite a source.

I wasn't asking you to prove your identity. Amazing how you continue to twist things to suit your own needs. Either that or you don't understand what "cite a source" means, in which case there's no way in hell you have the credentials you say you do.

[ShortnFiery]

249. There's your source! What, you want a warm body?

Let me introduce another little beastie into the mix: CLASSISM anyone?

I've heard many pro-Gore and Kerry advocates repeat over and over, their sheer astonishment at McKinney's lack of hum mm ... can I rephrase while still being accurate as *not good breeding*.

You know there's a reason that those of us who grew up in working class neighborhoods LACK the polish and debonair of a Gore or Kerry. They were never faced with having employers and bad cops kick dirt in their face at every damn opportunity. I have much more respect for Kerry for going to Vietnam and, most poignantly, his opposition to the war after. But alas! He seemingly has been re-assimilated into the "power broker ruling class."

Consider this for a while Vash? You said to me on another thread that you work "down the street" from THE MAN.

Can you relate to those of us who had to FIGHT and SCRAPE to not say "Ye ssa Sir" to the vicious, unethical, mean green employment masters? ...

We're tolerated because we're aquiring more $ and up coming up but never accepted by ANY Party's presumed Ruling Aristocracy -

why?

We're just not CLASS acts most especially if we don't know OUR PLACE. :shrug:

[mondo joe]

253. Flat out wrong.

No one ever mentioned "breeding". What an ugly lie.

And don't pretend it's a class issue - that's nothing but insulting to people who are born or raised low income or working class. There's nothing about either that calls for a person to behave poorly, to be ignorant of the law or to act without thinking.

How very very unfortunate.

[ShortnFiery]

256. No, I mentioned breeding ...

Every time you keep throwing up these flags, it convinces me that all these issues must be kept hush hush. That many people are ashamed to admit that they stereotype?

Yes, I'm too hard on rich people, even democrats. That's a personal failure for I know that many are not critical of me.

No, depending on our backgrounds, we come at this from different angles but I'M sorry, we all have Stereotypically racist, sexist and classist thoughts and often act accordingly.

Again, MJ, I was not accusing THE INDIVIDUAL OF BEING the label. Again you misunderstand me after I was convinced we were getting along so famously. ;)

[mondo joe]

260. You are again incorrect.

Birth dooes not determine ability.

[ShortnFiery]

264. You know JM we're gonna have to ...

stop meeing like this. People will erroneously think that we are "an item."

[Name removed]

276. Deleted message

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

[ShortnFiery]

280. You have been sniping at me since day one of this McKinney dust up ...

But instead of addressing the UNCOMFORTABLE facts you attempt a poorly feigned attack on my legitamacy is not called for. I expect better "stuff" from you JM, like actually addressing issue instead of attacking ME the person. I'm really getting tired of this JM. This is getting really close to a No-No breech of the rules. How bout' changing the tune "she's a mole!" at least?

[mondo joe]

285. I doubt I'm the only person who has noted this trend.

If you feel, as you say, I've breached the rules by all means hit the alert button. I have no wish to violate DU's terms.

[ShortnFiery]

291. What a grand Idea, thanks JM! n/t

[ShortnFiery]

292. Oh and the part where your associate Vash calls Karinina and Me

A Racist and A Liar was the utmost in decoum?

Oh you folks can be as hypocritical as us so-called gauche and intellectual peons!

Viva la France (spirit!)

[mondo joe]

293. I have no associates. I represent only myself. But that has

nothing to with your contradictory statements.

[ShortnFiery]

294. Self- delete

[ShortnFiery]

295. You really are 100% self- assured, it must be nice to have such

unwaivering confidence of once talent of deductiblity?

It must be so nice to be normal and always thoughtfully logical?

Well, you know, many of us have another side. Things were typed in the passion of the moment, but as, democrats, we respect each other.

Now it must be against the rules to consistently accuse someone of breaking the rules? <hope the irony is not lost in this :P>

Oh my dear God, how we all have DEVOLVED! ;)

[mondo joe]

297. I rest my confidence on the facts, not any person.

If you typed falsehoods in the "passion of the moment" all you need do is say so.

Though I must say, while the heat of the moment is often the cause of saying hurtful or angry things, I can't think when it's ever caused me to lie about myself.

[ShortnFiery]

296. It also has nothing to do with your contradictory assertions that

you employ logic and facts only YET you also have an opinion ... an opinion, you have claimed that is based ONLY on the facts?

Well I don't know how you do it partner, because there are a hell-of-va lot of facts not in evidence.

Please remember, "a person is the source of attack USUALLY when his opponents arguments run thin" :-).

[mondo joe]

298. If I've made contradictory statements, by all means cite them.

If you say I've contradicted myself it's only fair that you present the statements.

For example, please square these twocontradictory statements:

1. "I never said that I worked IN POLITICS in D.C."

and

2. "$35 K a year for a lobbyist? I was one of the 'beltway bandits' for years."

[Name removed]

255. Deleted message

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

[ShortnFiery]

259. You know that, you have called two of us both Racists and Liars?

I mean outright, no statement of one's BEHAVIOR is such. :wtf:

Really Vash, I do think that if you honestly believe the above, we're more than even in the "points" category?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

262. Well, let's look at the facts here.

You have been caught flatly lying about working in politics in DC. And the other is trying to claim that black people can't be called "arrogant", which is a racist comment in itself.

I feel pretty confident standing by both of those assessments.

[ShortnFiery]

267. I never said that I worked IN POLITICS in D.C.

I have worked in D.C. area under a couple of job descriptions that have to do with security. I understand how you would challenge me, but there is now, PUBLISHED source that verifies what we had argued about before.

I really am a somewhat private person - both in my selection of friends and what I want to reveal about myself on the Net. I resepect that you are well known and outgoing.

Again, we differ.

I'm going to stop "beating this dead horse" and let go.

Take care and don't take any wooden nickels and all that Jazz. :hi:

[mondo joe]

277. Please square these two claims:

1. "I never said that I worked IN POLITICS in D.C."

and

2. "$35 K a year for a lobbyist? I was one of the "beltway bandits" for years."

[ShortnFiery]

281. This was not addressed to you Joe, my pal, so how about you "pound sand"?

[mondo joe]

282. This is an open forum. You appear to have made two contradictory

statements.

Can you square them?

[ShortnFiery]

283. That's it!

100K barely pays for one's diggs in the D.C. area.

Come and visit sometime!

[mondo joe]

288. Please square these two statements:

1. "I never said that I worked IN POLITICS in D.C."

and

2. "$35 K a year for a lobbyist? I was one of the 'beltway bandits' for years."

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

284. Seems like he's got a legit question there.

[ShortnFiery]

289. No he doesn't and we both know that.

BTW, I'll delete my posts of saying the inappropriate "I hate the rich and/or connected to wealth" type meme, if you will delete the two posts were you call Kat and I BOTH Racist and Liars?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

302. Nope, sorry.

I'm not letting you off that easily. You've proven me correct while you couldn't be further from the truth. Why in the world would I take that kind of an offer?

And you didn't answer the question - how can you jive calling yourself a former beltway bandit in one post, but that you didn't work in politics in another? You HAVE to be lying in one of those posts, there's no way around it.

[ShortnFiery]

263. I never said that I think all lobbyists are rich ...

I was not even claiming that YOU, in particular, are rich - that's what we call in the PSYOPS world as "independent attribution"

Listen, you are a fellow democrat and it serves no purpose to continue to sharp-shoot you. It's tacky, and I do regret it came to this.

No, I have worked in D.C. and I know Political Leaders and General Officers from this "beltway bandits" area.

I didn't call you RICH so there's no need to call me a LIAR.

Let's let bygones be bygones?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

265. Care to explain this then?

Your quote: Can you relate to those of us who had to FIGHT and SCRAPE to not say "Ye ssa Sir" to the vicious, unethical, mean green employment masters?

How does that not imply that I'm upper class and can't relate to working class people? Hmm?

[ShortnFiery]

270. Hey, I'm long in the tooth and have some very poor

working class roots. I've been blessed to have lived in several countries for a year to three.

I am talking about before I had the opportunity to say, pull myself up by my bootstraps.

Again, we are not being kind to ourselves by continuing on with this un-winable "battle".

We will not ever convince the other.

Some middle class folks feel that the poor may just be lazy. Yeah, that was a little low of a blow. However, lots of misled working class and middle class LOVE the man and feel better when there's always someone else LOWER than them in behavior, decorum, class acts (the term means suave) then ---> "Life is good." That's not a money - like class thing, that's an entitlement, lack of empathy, IMO, thing. Just like cliques at school, there's always someone to "beat down."

Good-Day Vash :hi:

[ShortnFiery]

273. $35 K a year for a lobbyist?

I was one of the "beltway bandits" for years ... and, that's really difficult to understand? Hell you can't even live near-by off the beltway and make less than a salary of $100K?

All I can say is you must have to commute a longer distance away form The Capitol than I did. :shrug:

But I'll let this one be. :(

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

286. My profile is not hidden.

You can see I live in Silver Spring. It's not outside the Beltway. I barely make ends meet. I don't own a car. Need any further explanation?

[ShortnFiery]

299. That's because you wish to be a PUBLIC person

Being a thoughtful member of DU does NOT insist that we share our personal information.

No, but that doesn't make me a republican mole, nor a disruptor, nor a bad person because I have far less posts than you.

It should not be a requirement for entry into this club to "let it all hang out" as such.

So, how bout we both cease with the mindless and horrid politics of one's oponent's destruction.

This damn topic has brought out the worst in many people.

"open the cage match door ... i'm whipped and wanna git out!"

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

305. You made the claim.

No one forced you to do that. Far be it from me to ask you to back it up. But even at that, you don't have to - just cite a source that shows you were correct in saying that all staff and Capitol Police are required to memorize the faces of all Members of Congress. You can't do that, so you keep sidestepping.

And I never called you a Republican, a disruptor, or a bad person because you have fewer posts. In fact, I said the only thing that says is that people here CAN verify my identity, whereas no one here can vouch for yours. I said that quite specifically. I did call you a lunatic, and I still think you are. You have little to no grasp of concepts of fact, nor can you even keep your own arguments straight. You merely keep blathering on about pledge pins, which goes beyond asinine.

Sorry, but playing the victim isn't going to work either. You made factually incorrect posts, purposefully. Either stand by them or apologize. One or the other.

[ShortnFiery]

307. Gosh, the last thing I would ever claim to be is "a victim"

I'll let my earlier posts stand for themselves - along with your responses.

Any of the discreet admins are welcome to email me, I'm happy to confirm my ID as one each/who lives about the D.C. beltway.

Now this "lunatic" must get those bandages for "my eyes"! I really must ... :hi:

[ShortnFiery]

308. "Beltway Bandits" do not have to be POLITICAL animals - look it up!

God, I know I'm going to hate myself in the morning. :(

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

309. Wikipedia does not agree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_bandits

[ShortnFiery]

310. OMFG Vash ... then please - read it again?!?

Private contractors do NOT have to be POLITICAL. The hordes of people who make money off of the "CASH Cow" government here are not all political cronies but work in the Security, Telecom, Intelligence, Strategic Planning, Military Planing Resources, etcetera etcetera AD NAUSEA!

Now I know that you're a driven woman too. I respect that. Up until my kids were ready for grade school, I scampered around finding employment with a couple of different companies that serviced ... "ta da!" THE GOVERNMENT BEASTIE.

You'll probably accuse me of lying again, but I even worked for an INDEPENDENT PRIVATE contractor out of the Pentagon. Again now, I could be lying, but the fact that I had a current and updated "security clearance" made my employment prospects a veritable candy store. Because I'm blessed to have a spouse who I've adored for over 25 years, I am a "stay at home" Mom for a couple of MORE years. This is a luxury and yes, I know that very few families are as fortunate as us. No, I don't like to socialize with people "real life" at DU and you can't verify my statements above, but some of us are ... well, different in our sensibilities and takes on what we consider really constitute racist or racist enabling behaviors. I'd appreciate if you would at least consider that this notion is not all that Looney-Toons?

Please Vash, I know you are an equally strong willed kind of woman and I've take my fair share of cheap shots, you've dished some out too ... and well, can we just STOP? This is so f**king useless and not healthy for the message board atmosphere. Most especially since McKinney HAS done what you thought best - Apologize. I didn't think it necessary but at least maybe this nightmare will end?

[CTLawGuy]

227. Rush Limbaugh thanks you for your post

NT

[Dorian Gray]

97. That's what I was thinking, too....

It was brave (AND FOOLISH) to post this OP here, though. I'm interested to see the response!

[timber84]

3. I tend to agree with your take on this.

[DrGonzoLives]

4. RACIST

:sarcasm:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. ...

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Thanks Dr. Gonzo.

[BlackHeart]

5. Of course he grabbed her what else could he do...

Yell, "Stop or I'll say stop again!" ?

[5X]

7. Its overpriced. n/t

[Tsiyu]

14. LOL

:rofl:

Why am I not surprised either?

[Binka]

25. LOL

Me too!

[johnnie]

9. .

:popcorn:

Many will agree with you, many will not. Due to all the attacks here lately, I won't take a side any longer. The "discussion" part of the "discussion forum" has been cast aside. It seems to have become the "if you disagree with me you are a troll" forum.

[DrGonzoLives]

12. TROLL

:sarcasm:

[johnnie]

15. Thank you sir...

...may I have another?
:)

[napi21]

10. I don't disagree with you. I tried to post something similar the other

day, but many DUers don't want to hear logic on this issue. My other suggestion was to let the story play out and see where it goes from both sides. They didn't want to hear that either. I think it was just the hot issue of the week and sooner or later people will stop fanning the flames.

[sui generis]

11. I don't know about #3 being not under dispute

but I mostly agree with the rest of your statement.

It was irresponsible to ask an officer of the law to make an exception to a security policy that could have cost him his job.

I don't believe she struck him though.

And I don't think this "incident" is even remotely worthy of attention. It was a misunderstanding that both sides are blowing up from an atom into a molehill.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. I haven't seen her refute that yet.

So that's why I'm calling it fact. If she has, please let me know and I'll update.

I do agree it should be nothing. All of this would've just blown over if Rep. McKinney had just issued an apology. So if it's become a molehill (still rather unimportant), it's a molehill of Rep. McKinney's making.

[bigtree]

13. right off you get caught in casting your own spin on events

She's 'touched' according to you

He's 'hit'

[lukasahero]

19. Excellent catch.

Thank you.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. Three Capitol officers say she struck him.

She hasn't refuted it.

That's as close as fact as it gets without seeing a video.

As far as the "touched" part goes, all I can say is that she was touched. I haven't read anything that gets into specifics about how she was grabbed, so if I'm presenting facts, all I can say is that she was touched. I think I was pretty clear about the part where how she was touched or grabbed is fuzzy.

[bigtree]

27. "She hasn't refuted it" That doesn't sound balanced or relevant

That's an example of the hazard of taking what we've been fed by the media and the 'authorities' as fact. Rep. McKinney has a perfect right to her silence on that. If there are charges, it will be the officer's burden to produce those facts. In the meanwhile, I'll put my support squarely behind this legislator of our party and take the self-serving pronouncements of the Capitol police for what they are worth.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. You're free to do that.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

23. I've made an edit for you.

[bigtree]

30. good call

[dogday]

16. You are telling one side of the story-the Policeman's

version.... There are always two sides to every story, you have chosen this side apparently.

[DrGonzoLives]

20. Is hers correct by default then?

n/t

[dogday]

49. I believe I posted 2 sides to every story

I think there is a little truth in both stories and that this should be settled behind closed doors not in the press....

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. I'm telling what hasn't been refuted.

Those are the parts of the story that have not been denied by anyone. Rep. McKinney has had ample opportunity to refute those facts, and to my knowledge, she has not.

[progressivebydesign]

29. that was my take. We are operating on undisputed events. n/t

[bigtree]

55. She's apparently facing charges. Why should she say anything

about the specifics of the event until she knows what jeapordy she might be placed in by the Capitol police? If they do charge her, they will have the burden of proving the act. We may want to try this here, but she shouldn't subject herself to a public airing of events unless she finds it in her interest.

This cop, the law, is just fine. Our party's stance to uphold the law is not going to be damaged by affording Rep. McKinney any legitimate measure of defense in a due process of law. We should try to respect that here. However strident we may be about the congresswoman personally, or however committed we may be about fine points of politics and law, we should not abandon our Democratic representative to the wolverines of summary judgement.

[Mr_Spock]

37. Big whoop

What's your big stake in this issue anyway?

It's a simple thing that happens thousands of times every day.

I'm moving on...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

42. Why do I have to have a stake in the issue?

Do you have a stake in every issue you post about?

[Mr_Spock]

148. Well, I post in another's thread if I am not overly concerned

This issue is quite old and only people like yourself are initiating posts that seem to perpetuate the issue. If you don't have some strong interest in this issue, why would you take the time to compose such a message and post it here?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

149. Because I see so much misinformation and outrage based upon it

[Mr_Spock]

150. OK - but it's not much of an issue to me...

I am responding to the threads because it's like a soap opera, but don't think for a minute that I give a flying fuck about this sorry event.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

152. I just don't understand why you think I'd be so different.

Sure, I started a topic, but I don't treat every thread I create as if it were my first-born.

[Mr_Spock]

155. "...treat every thread ...as if it were my first-born" - Huh? 50 posts??

You've taken this thread VERY seriously. You've responded to every attack that you KNEW you would get when you posted it - as you stated. You have posted 1 in 3 of all the posts in this thread - 50 posts to date...

Why not admit that you posted this expecting a flame-fest?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

156. ...and how does expecting a flame-fest make me have stock in it?

Call me a freak, but I quite frankly don't care if I get flamed. However, it's only responsible to defend one's comments. I'm not a post-and-run kind of guy. I stand by my comments. I was accused of spin above - so I admitted the fault and changed the OP. So it's not like I'm blindly taking swings at people either.

Further, what does it really matter how many times I've posted or how serious I take this issue? Are you trying to drive at some other point by saying that? If so, stop being passive-aggressive and just say what you mean.

[Mr_Spock]

158. I've already stated that I don't give a flying fuck about this issue

I just don't give a flying fuck about this issue and I think you are giving it more attention than I think it deserves (you know, IMHO)...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

159. That's fine. (nt)

[Catrina]

173. And your post just added to the misinformation. n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

181. Point out the misinformation, be my guest.

Not a single part of my post has been refuted by any of the parties involved.

[dogday]

53. Refuted by who Cynthia? Her Attorney?

Cause they are not releasing a whole lot of facts right now... We have not heard the complete story from her side at all.. So you are getting the press version of the story, are you not????

[Catrina]

208. No, you did not. The cop has not refuted Ms. McKinney's statements

has he? I would appreciate a link if you have one. As for Ms. McKinney, her statement refutes what you posted. Perhaps you should read it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

212. Oh really?

Can you tell me where anything is refuted in this statement: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ga04_mckinney/incidentstmt.html

[MaraJade]

175. I agree with you. . .

Apparently to the white police officer, one overriding factor was that Rep. McKinney decided to change her
hairdo (oh lordy! don't that gal know that colored wimmens must never change their grooming!) The police
did admit that her curls rendered her unrecognizable to them.

Cause everyone knows that all black people look alike. We need a lapel pin to tell the ones who are
Representatives from all of the others. Can't go on the identifcation of their faces, cause they all have
the exact same face.

Sheesh!

For years, I worked in a secure building guarded by police and GUESS WHAT! They knew me by my face. In fact,
they knew my face so well that I didn't even have to show a badge most of the time.

This smells like a setup to me. . .

[Name removed]

182. Deleted message

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

[RubyDuby in GA]

18. I agree with everything you've said

especially "We demand that Republicans not be treated as "above the law" - I'm not quite sure why we're expecting something different here."

[peacetalksforall]

24. What makes you think you know something?

We know very little - virtually nothing ... (from another thread, my contribution)

If we don't know WHEN he first asked/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?

And we don't know if there was eye contact prior touching 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? An authority on entering and exiting has said that the pin means as much as police officer's badge - easily reproduced. That is supposedly why security is supposed to recognize them.

And do we know if they had prior exchanges?

And do we know if he was new to the post?

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.

All we know from the news is 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?

You strike me as someone obsessed? The value of this list and watching C-Span and hearings and by watching corporate news convict a suspect on live tv before a person is even arraigned - should make us more inclined to think like a defense lawyer rather than a bimbo-jester-tv-posse-joiner for ratings, revenge, or to mock the law.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[rock]

39. Well I certainly agree with your overall sentiment

We don't know what the facts are. Yet. Therefore we are left with speculation.

[CatWoman]

51. ROCK!!!!!

I came in this thread to lob a couple of grenades, but I'm so glad to see you, I think I'll keep the pins in for a while

:hi:

:hi:

[progressivebydesign]

26. I had better not be called a troll for agreeing. Been here since 2001

Without a video of the incident to bolster either claim, the available facts tell me that Rep. McKinney made a mistake. You cannot barge through like that. Any reasonable person, on their way into a secure building to work, and without their name tage, lapel pin, badge, etc., would expect to be detained for a moment. If she didnt realize she hadn't worn her pin, then when called, she should have stopped and explained. If Rep. McKinney can prove that white members can pass through the entrances without lapel pins, and in an instance where they are not recognizable to the guards, then she could have a case about being singled out. Where she probably doesn't have a case, is in ignoring the guard's requests, then smacking the guard when they tried to stop her. I worked at a newspaper and we were required to wear badges to get in. If you did not wear your badge, you could not come in... simple as that. If I had continued past the guard, ignored requests to stop, then hit the guard when they tried to stop me... I would have been fired on the spot.

Based on the details we know so far, Rep. McKinney was the one who is forcing a double standard. The guards are there for the safety of those in the building. She did not act reasonably, and turning this into a race issue does much more harm than good. It wasn't like she was standing in line, waiting to get into the building.. wearing her required pin.. and the guards dragged her out of the line against her protestations, and put her in a headlock. She tried to get into the building without proper ID, and refused to cooperate with the security people, then smacked the security people when they tried to stop her. reminds me of a story of a famous actress on location in a small town in California. One day, while getting her morning coffee, the actress backed her rental car into a brand new sports car. She got out, looked at the damage, jumped back in her car and started it up... the owner of the car she hit raced out.. and stopped her from driving away. She tried to excuse away her behavior by saying "Don't you know who I am?", as though that was a free pass for breaking the rules. The person who owns the brand new sportscar replied? "I know who you are, do you know what I am? A trial attorney. You hit the wrong car". Being rich, famous, elected, ordained, etc., does not make you above the rules. If Rep. McKinney can show that the details of this incident are any different than being reported, she needs to express that.

[bigtree]

33. " the available facts"

:eyes:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

34. I'm actually surprised at the response thus far.

I expected to get blasted from here to next Thursday.

[timber84]

40. Consider yourself lucky I took an unpopular position the other day

and got tag teamed.

[mazzarro]

44. Get your facts right

The story is that members of congress usually do not wear badges and have been going around electronic monitors. So you better check your facts again rather than prejudge her for whatever biased reasons you might have.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

52. No, they wear lapel pins.

And they usually do wear them. And when they don't, they often get stopped.

[peacetalksforall]

56. I believe your wrong and you should check it out - especially when.

your so so adamant. But, maybe you work there, and know something the rest of the country doesn't know. So share with us.

[SOS]

279. Really?

Last night on Olbermann an NBC Washington correspondent said that about 50% of the Congresspeople do NOT wear them.
Are you saying that half of the entire Congress is stopped everyday? Or just the one being swiftboated?

[Marie26]

That's what the Congressional lapel pin is for.

Congresspeople are entitled to skip security lines. In order to go around security, they have a Congressional pin that lets Capitol Police know that they're a Congressman, or the Police recognize them as a Congressman & let them skip the line. McKinney was not wearing the lapel pin; she just thinks that the guard should have recognized her.

[acmavm]

135. You laid the case out PERFECTLY. But lately everytime

someone posts anything lately, if someone doesn't agree with you the first thing they call you is a racist, or a sexist. Or something hateful.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

143. There are zealots for all sides of every issue.

Sadly, we are not exempt.

[Catrina]

174. Actually, he did not lay the case out perfectly at all. He laid out his

own opinion
He claims his 'facts' are indisputable because, he says, 'no-one has disputed them'. Again, incorrect. They are disputed in Ms.McKinney's statement. He fails to mention that the reports have changed over the course of the past few days. Ms.McKinney's has not. The truth doesn't change so why all the different reports?

He also did not mention the report about the video. He has no curiosity about the cop, who appears to be in hiding. He insists that Cynthia is obligated to refute the anonymous reports, but doesn't hold the cop to the same standard. Why did the cop not refute her claims? By his logic, that makes her statements irrefutable.

I wasn't there, but I read Ms.McKinney's statement. I have tried to follow the various statements coming from the cops, and have been waiting to hear from THE cop to see if at least he will refute McKinney's statements. But so far, he has not.

What happened to 'she whacked him with a cell-phone'? eg. Or 'she punched him in the chest with a cellphone?' Or was it 'she poked him' minus the cell-phone? And why did the video stop before the 'incident'? Or is that just a rumor also? Iow, which is the version we are going with today?

I'll wait to see the video and hear from the cop, after he is identified. Meantime I have only Cynthia's statement to go by ~

She is not obligated to wear her pin, most members often do not.
She was carrying her ID.
She was legally in the process of doing her job as a US Rep.
The cop, despite the OP's claim, does receive training in recognizing the people he is supposed to protect. Clearly this cop failed to do that. Had he been competent, none of this would have happened.

Things I would like to know:

How many other members not wearing their pins, did this cop disbelieve when they told him who they were, if in fact he failed to recognize anyone BUT Ms.Kinney?

Why is he in hiding? Why have we not received his report of the incident? Is there something about him that they feel might be troublesome for them?

Is the cop hurt? Scratched? Bruised? Emotionally traumatized? Anything that would prove he was 'slapped' or 'punched' or 'poked' or whatever word we are using today?

This is a ridiculous issue. It makes cops look bad, like cry-babies to be honest. And it definitely doesn't instill confidence that our security, or that of our Reps. is in good hands.

One more thing. When judging any case like this, usually we take into account the personalities of the people involved. We know Cynthia McKinney. We know that she has been in trouble many times for telling the truth. Why should we doubt her now, when she has hot given us any reason to believe she is in the habit of lying?

We know nothing about the cop. We do not know if he has a reputation, like McKinney, for truth-telling ~ in fact, we don't even know his name. Yet, some here choose to accept that he was in the right (even though he has not commented at all yet) and she is in the wrong. How can anyone come to such a conclusion until they at least know something about him?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

186. Did you even read my post?

Doesn't sound like it.

[martymar64]

31. And cops don't lie?

Apparently you don't remember some certain Arkansas State Troopers.
If a cop grabbed a Rethug congressman from behind, he now be unemployed.
I smell a setup.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

35. Cops do lie.

I never said they don't.

Rep. McKinney isn't calling them a liar. And there are videotapes. So if they were lying, I'm pretty certain we'd know about it already.

[Freddie Stubbs]

58. Which is why she will probably will not be convicted unless

there are some witnesses to back up the police officer's story.

[Minnesota Libra]

36. At the risk of being flamed into next year....................

....I say thank you for some balance on this issue. I also had some thoughts on the "hair" issue.

#2 is generally referred to as "resisting an officer" which is never a wise idea.

#3 is generally referred to as "assaulting an officer" which is always a felony.

Now, as for the hair. I'm sure there isn't a woman here who hasn't at some point in her life gone to the beauty shop wanting "something different". Sometimes that change turns out to be more drastic for other people than it is for us. I'm sure every woman has experienced friends and maybe even family saying, "OMG, your hair is completely different, I didn't recognize you at first" or "You look so different with that style".

So if friends and family may not recognize us with a new hair style how is anyone else supposed to recognize us?

Guess time will tell how this all plays out.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

45. Looking at the thread, I have a feeling you speak for many here.

I guess that's part of why I posted this. I, too, expected to get flamed into next year, but heck we should all know better, being Democrats and all. We're in the majority, yet we worry about a small number of very loud people bashing us for our widely held ideas. Of course, it's a LOT easier for me to do that here on DU than it is for our elected officials, who put their jobs on the line, but it's the same principle behind the silence.

[Minnesota Libra]

136. Based on my own recent experiences I'm beginning to understand..........

......why more people don't speak out on any variety of issues more than they do. Yes, I agree that ".....we worry about a small number of very loud people bashing us for our widely held ideas."

On the other hand, it's that small group that launches truly horrific mean spirited flame wars against any view/opinion that doesn't meet with their complete approval. They don't see how similar their tactics are to the fundies/neocons in power now.

It's those mean spirited flame wars that bothers me the most. Those tactics are what has gotten us into the mess we find in Washington DC right now. Both ends of the political spectrum uses the same tactics and wonders why people hate them so much.

Sorry for my little :rant: here but that felt good. thanks :pals:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

141. Any time ML

:hug:

[ShortnFiery]

271. Oh yes, we who don't have any true power, speaking out

against Racial Profiling of a liberal congresswoman.

What the hell is the matter with me! Especially during this delicate time when all the "piling on" with this inane issue serves to FEED THE ROVE-CO Propaganda Beastie.

How in the hell did I get the audacity that my fellow democrats who don't care so much for McKinney could refrain on the *digs* and *opinions* until she's in the clear?

Yep, I'm a total jack booted thug! I don't deserve to be called a Liberal Democrat ... I best go join the ranks of the Republicans ... well no, I tend to disagree with them even more. Waaa! :P

[ShortnFiery]

275. IF you think it's bad a DU, you should be involved in the Congress ...

Guess what, as you are entertaining yourselves ... contributing to the Rove Co lynching of McKinney, our illustrious Congress (thanks to the Republican Leadership) are going to pass an *ALL* Capitol Hill Police are DoublePlusGood bill - bless there hearts!?!

Why are they doing that you might ask?

To destroy McKinney. When you don't respect the liberal wing of your party, another republican Jack Boots a Democrat who speaks truth to power.

Oh my, if it could be only like this with the "real reins" of power in our Blessed Congress!?!

One FACTOID about *republicans* which is both appealing and appalling is they promptly STFU when it comes to disrespecting (a Rovian cleared) one of their own "fellow republican." Yes, they heed Saint Reagan's first rule of political strategy - Don't dis' a fellow republican.

This is both good and bad.

Do you think entertaining the Freepers and Rabid Right Wingers is the "way to go" today?

[IndyJones]

216. I agree with everything you said.

[Greylyn58]

38. I haven't joined in the debate/discussion

on this issue because I've been waiting to see where it goes. Having said that, I think what you have written is well reasoned and articulated.

I especially agree with your statement: "We demand that Republicans not be treated as "above the law" - I'm not quite sure why we're expecting something different here."

Spot on!!! The people we elect can not feel they are above the law otherwise we will just continue to perpetuate the current Republican attitude filling the White House and Congress

[Marie26]

41. Agree w/you

For what it's worth.

[stanwyck]

43. Don't you get it?

What happened is never what is important. How it's spun it what matters.
For half the country, the story goes like this: another upstanding member of the black community was stopped and treated disrepectfully for no apparent reason. Or she was targeted. Because she's such a vocal critic of this administration.
Don't think there is a black person who hasn't been the victim of driving while black...shopping while black....walking while black.
That happens. To the hard-working guy sharing my office who served in the army for 8 years, goes to church every Sunday, has been married for 28 years, and loves his wife and children.
And we liberals sympathize with the emotion these stories have within the black community. Plus, McKinney being the "victim" adds fuel to the fire for those of us who want to see conspiracies behind everything this administration does.
On the other side, we have hateradio speakers gleefully saying McKinney "looks like a crack whore" (Neal Boortz). Others have called her "crazy". She's now public enemy number one. A very dangerous woman. And the ardent freepers are spewing spittle castigating her with very personal attacks. Their hatred of women and blacks is all answered in one sordid little incident.

Maybe you're right about what happened. My gut tells me you are.
But that really doesn't matter, does it?

The black commmunity will see this as another example of America's continuing racism. And hateradio is solidifying that consensus with their openly sneering comments based on McKinney's appearance. Those insults will resonate with even the most mild-mannered church-goers.
And the racists who hide within the GOP with their showy love of Condi (yeah, right -- like they'd ever really nominate her) will have their bigotry massaged by Ms. McKinney's bad behavior.
And just so you know, McKinney's my congresswoman. I always vote for Cynthia. And even knowing she's a woman behaving badly, I will again.
Because I like the way she votes. And that's the bottom line.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

48. I think you hit the heart of the matter here.

And you know what? I agree with you, mostly.

Where I part company from you is that I feel you completely marginalize your own cause by crying wolf where there is no wolf. In this case, there was no racism. I feel very confident in saying that, and I think most people agree with me. So what happens next time we hear from the black community, crying "racism"? People aren't as likely to take them at their word because we know for a fact that they've used it before when no racism occurred.

If she were my Congresswoman, I'd vote for her again too. Sure, I'd listen to what a primary opponent would have to say because of this, but I'd still vote for her.

[stanwyck]

103. I agree with you about there NOT

being racism on the part of the security guard. He was doing his job. But, it's the perception, not the facts, which are shaping this story.
And what we're hearing from hateradio IS racism. A U.S. Congresswoman looks "like a crack whore." And, now, Limbaugh is calling a woman who has filed rape charges against Duke students a "ho".
What's the message? You're a black woman...you must be a "ho"...unless, of course, you're a conservative black woman member of the Bush administration. And then you're Condi.
Make no mistake. These slurs are remembered by the black community, including those who are truly appalled by Ms. McKinney's behavior. But her behavior has been trumped by the ugliness of the hateradio attacks.
Not so surprising that in 2006, there is NOT ONE black member of Congress. Not one.
That's disgraceful. But, if America is listening, not really surprising.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

109. I think we can agree then.

I don't take any issue with your last statement.

Thank you for your comments. :toast:

[Llewlladdwr]

170. "there is NOT ONE black member of Congress"

Huh?

[hfojvt]

176. I believe a word is missing

The word "Republican"

There is NOT ONE black Republican in Congress.

Although I must say that I am happy that Tammy Baldwin's opponent in 2002 was defeated soundly. Ditto for Alan Keyes. So, there have been black Republican candidates, but fortunately they have lost.

[stanwyck]

187. not one GOP black member

of Congress.

[Guaranteed]

179. Damned good post.

Everything you said. It just pisses me off so fucking much. I end up constantly using caps.

Thanks for putting it so well.

[WI_DEM]

46. I agree with what you wrote and also if it had been on the other foot

and it had been a Republican member who had done this many people here, including many defending Cynthia McKinney would be outraged! They think they can get away with anything and don't have to follow the rules. Sorry, but it does go both ways.

[jukes]

54. "I"

never called you a freeper.

i did/do question your fixation on this issue.

i did scoff at your "things have changed since 9/11" remark: nothing has changed since 9/11 and DHS is a mismanaged showboat distraction to dupe the public. "Capitol Police" are not police, they are and always will be glorified ushers. about the only "police training" they DO receive is in "recognition" &, yes, i find it impossible to believe McKinney isn't instantly recognizable by any "Capitol Police" officer. perhaps you have trouble w/ facial/body recognition, but it doesn't seem you ever went to "cop-school" or have any other training that wd heighten your powers of observation. i repeat, 1ce again, "Capitol Police" don't make this kind of mistake. BTW, if "post 9/11" security is so tight, why is ANY1 allowed to bypass a ckpoint? surely a "congresscritter" dedicated checkpoint cd be set up to speed them past the unwashed masses!

it remains that Cynthia McKinney is 1 of the few politicos that openly critices the (mal)administration on actual issues and is a thorn in the side of those-who-wd-be-king. any indiscretion she may have commited in this incident is MOST pale considering the utter darkness of the opposition.

i'm pretty much done w/ calling out apologists for the "capitol Police" in this matter, so post away! malign her as you wish & i'll not trouble you w/ anymore reality-checks. i doubt that Cynthia can be silenced; i also doubt that this country can EVER be reclaimed from the legacy of the dominionists.

have a nice day, & DO remember to keep those digging-claws clean of clinging earth!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

57. I didn't say you did call me a freeper.

But you're not the only one to reply.

And why is it that I have a fixation on this issue, but not the hundreds of others that are posting repeatedly in support of Rep. McKinney? Why is it that YOU don't have a fixation on this issue? You seem to be pretty intent on replying to my posts, so why are you so fixated on this?

The truth is, I don't think either of us are "fixated". We're discussing. I've seen far more posts calling for the heads of the Capitol Police officer than vice versa, so I'm speaking out. That's just what I do - I believe in balance. I believe in calling out bullshit when I see it. I don't believe in sitting down and keeping quiet just because I'm outnumbered.

If I were a Congressman, I'd probably have a bronzed statue in my honor, made by DUers, for doing that! :D

[jukes]

60. maybe i am fixated

or maybe i'm just having a good time for myself.

you be the judge, since you're bullshit meter is so calibrated.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

61. I think I already answered that.

:hi:

[jukes]

63. and i stated i'd let you have your fun

!mi malo!

i'll go twist some other tails now...

[northzax]

104. the Capitol Police are actually a lot more than 'glorified ushers'

to be fair. They are a legitimate police force with jurisdiction over sections of federal buildings in DC. but feel free to marginalize them as well.

and a checkpoint for elected reps would violate the constitution, since it might prevent them from getting to a vote.

personally, I think that every policeman at the checkpoint should be summarily fired without a pension. every week, every capitol police officer should be forced to take a visual identification test, picking out the real elected official walking by from a group of lookalikes. unless they get a perfect score, every week, they should be summarily fired. seems fair to me.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

117. Your request seems rather unreasonable.

Shouldn't they be spending that time that you think they should be studying people's faces, I don't know, protecting people? Call me crazy, but it seems like a LOT to ask for the sake of 535 people.

On the other side, is it so much to ask an MC to go through a screener? It literally takes about a minute to do. And if that is too much, is it too much to ask them to wear a pin so that officers can easily identify them? Doesn't seem like it to me. I'd rather pay them to protect people than to study pictures for a very small luxury.

[northzax]

138. did I forget my sarcasm tag again?

curses.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

140. Oops, sorry about that!

Didn't pick up on it! :toast:

[jukes]

153. northzax

i marginalized them as flamebait to a poser-oops! i meant "poster", that goes on & on about this minor incident when there are much more important violations to discuss. all of them by the junta or their democrat politico lapdogs.

that said, these "glorified ushers" are usually perfectly adequate rentacop deputy-dawgs as well as finders-of-lost-articles.

i really have known several "Capitol Police Officers", well enough to kick the dogshit out of 1 of the posers 1ce for his pretentiousness in a bar off Dupont Cir.

BTW, any "cop" that DOESN'T know his beat, especially 1 as limited as the turf patrolled by "Capitol Police", really shd be fired.

[mmonk]

59. Well

was she by herself and was there no one around that knew who she was? Wasn't this the third time? And finally, were you there?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

62. Were YOU there?

Irrelevant question. I posted only the facts that no one involved in the altercation are disputing.

Whether or not she was by herself is also irrelevant. The officer did not recognize her, and only his opinion on that matters.

I don't know what you mean by "wasn't this the third time?" Third time for what? And why would it matter?

[mmonk]

66. I guess everyone can get caught up in this security

madness to where reason is not used. I'll give you another example: Ted Kennedy on the no fly list. Third time was a reference to her statement I saw which indicated this is the third time this has happened. I always ask people who speak authoritatively about something like this if they were there. I'll give up all suspicions when it happens to republicans on Capitol Hill. I'm also reserving judgement because I wasn't there, but I can go on patterns like you can go on procedures.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

69. I won't disagree with the ridiculousness of "security madness"

We've gone way overboard as a nation, and the dumb thing is that we're not even doing the right things to secure ourselves at all. But that's another debate entirely.

Dumb question for Rep. McKinney - if this is the third time she's had a problem going through security without her lapel pin, why was she so surprised and offended this time? And why do you keep forgetting to wear your pin when you know you might have a problem?

I've tried to avoid speaking out authoritatively on the issue. All I did was go on the facts that are not in dispute. Someone up-thread pointed out that I might have spun it, so I changed my phrasing. I apologize if I still did not succeed.

Finally, it does happen to Republicans (the non-recoginition part). The "grabbing" part also happens to Republicans, as Rep. Bill Young's wife found out. Even after he raised hell about it, they didn't back down, and he's one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress.

[mmonk]

77. I make no judgement as to whether McKinney

is doing any grandstanding. Not sure if a spouse constitutes the same thing as a Congress critter that is there. Also, concerning reason, it strikes me as odd that if the new security person didn't know who she was, that none of the others could vouch for her being who she is either or anyone else in the vicinity. As far as the subject goes, I don't feel comfortable arguing in either position. I am, however, very suspicious these days.

[mondo joe]

83. I'm not clear on how there'd be time to get someone to vouch for

her. If she's walking at all briskly, and the officer didn't recognize her, or couldn't see her face clearly, his first duty is to stop her, rather than asking around.

[mmonk]

96. I was speaking in terms

of unless all the other officers were unfamiliar with her as well, it strikes me odd. Also, I don't know if anyone was around but I wouldn't think everything around them was deserted.

[mondo joe]

105. I apologize if I'm misunderstanding, but I guess I don't get the

process.

1. Officer sees a person pass by the detector.
2. For the sake of figuring out process, let's just say he doesn't recognize her.
3. He says "Stop" (again, for the sake of figuring out the process).
4. She doesn't stop, but just keeps walking on.
5. He gets and stop her so she can be identified.

I don't see where the other officers play into it, unless in step 5 he should instead turn to another officer and say "Hey, did you recognize that person who just walked by the detector?"

I'm being quite sincere here - I don't know what other sequence of events would be expected.

[mmonk]

123. I don't think the officer did anything procedurely wrong.

I don' think its the other officers position to verify her. I also don't think all of this happens in a vacuum either. I'm also not defending McKinney's reactions in any way. Let's say you were McKinney. Let's say you know other people see you there all the time. Get it yet?

[mondo joe]

124. Yes, I do get it.

That's why, if I were her, I'd wear the dumb pin and I'd pay attention when passing through the security checks.

If you think people are out to get you it really doesn't pay to not even meet the minimum expectations.

In some small way I'm reminded of Bill Clinton who did something so utterly idiotic while he was under such scrutiny and then when on TV to lie about it. Please, please, please understand - I don't believe the investigation was worthy or appropriate. But there it was, and Clinton went ahead and fucked up, and let a lot of people down.

We all make mistakes, we all fuck up. But it doesn't help when we don't even bother to follow the rules.

[mmonk]

129. But the absense of common sense

is going to provide us all with an exploitated circus now.

[mondo joe]

131. Well, America loves a circus. :-(

And fueling this is hay to be made on all sides.

Obviously the Republicans will enjoy this and will milk it for all its worth.

As will the Scarboroughs and Tweetys.

And McKinney will problably benefit as well, as things like this are great for fundraising.

[mmonk]

133. You got it.

The media and pols will have a field day and more news will get buried that affects us everyday.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

85. I'm making no comment on grandstanding either.

My only point with Bill Young's wife is that it's not a partisan game - they don't care if you're a Republican or Democrat. They certainly didn't care when one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress came screaming at them, and that's good enough for me when it comes to non-partisan credentials.

I thank you for your comments. :toast:

[mmonk]

90. Thanks

:toast:

[ShortnFiery]

274. Of course it MIGHT have been ...

Please recall that, to that moment, only Cyndi Sheehan had been "arrested for wearing a T-shirt with lettering". Rove-Co. had to make a SPLIT SECOND command decision, ergo = Bill Young's wife's arrest. I'm sure that feathers were ruffled but those republicans are true TEAM players. <--- what I surmise.

[NaturalHigh]

64. You know that McKinney is loving all of this.

She hasn't been in the news much lately, so she hasn't had the chance to scream "racism". Her press conference was a classic "look at me" moment. She's loving the attention.

[bigtree]

68. Yeah, why the hell isn't she busy back in the halls

quietly rolling over

[Hobarticus]

178. Sadly, that's all anyone's seeing of Democrats right now...

But hey, here on DU, she's a hero...

[ShortnFiery]

304. Good, she deserves a ray of sunshine ...

But like the Capitol Hill Police Staff, I bet she sure WISHes Rove would finally "shit or get off the pot", i.e., allow the cops to either charge her or "let it be".

[smb]

65. It's Time To End The Foolishness

Congresscritters should be required to go through the detector just like the common peasant folk. That would deflate egos like Ms McKinney's and thus prevent similar incidents in the future.

[Dorian Gray]

113. They'd NEVER stand for that....

though I would like to see that happen. They could all use a little bit of humility.

[mondo joe]

67. Vash, I'd add another point. Per McKinney's statement,

after she was stopped she showed him her Congressional ID.

What's quite unclear to me from that statement is whether she was actually wearing it or just had it with her.

I recognize the expctation is that they'll have the pin, but the ID has become quite a sticking point in DU conversations.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

70. Everyone has a Congressional ID that works on the Hill.

They still have to go through screening. Just showing an ID doesn't do the trick.

[mondo joe]

78. Yes, but this is still a repeated sticking point on DU.

I'd like to know if she was actually wearing it or not, since so much is being made of it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

81. Just because it's a sticking point doesn't make it relevant.

An ID is not going to get you around screenings - that's as cut and dried as it gets. Doesn't matter if she was wearing it before she got stopped or pulled it out after. You don't even need an ID to get into the building - you just have to go through security. The ID part of it couldn't be any more irrelevant than it is.

[Marie26]

82. As far as I can tell..

I looked into this a bit, cause it was a sticking point w/me too. If she didn't have visible Congressional ID, she's got no defense, IMO. And as far as I can tell, Congressional ID is not a "badge" that you pin to your jacket, but a "card" that you put in your wallet or purse (like a driver's license). It's called a "card" & McKinney says she "showed" the officer the ID after he stopped her - all this implies that the card was not immediately visible. So, there's no way the officer could've seen it, I think. And even if he did see it, only the Congressional pin entitles the person to go around security - and it's indisputed that she was not wearing that pin. Seems pretty open & shut to me.

Congressional ID card photo: http://www3.baylor.edu/Library/BCPM/Poage/photos/10freshman.html

[laundry_queen]

87. Thank you, your post was helpful.

And if all that is required is a small wallet card and a tiny lapel pin, security has bigger problems than Cynthia McKinney. Yeesh!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

101. Not really.

The problem is THOUSANDS of people come into the Capitol every day that are neither staff, nor MCs. All citizens are welcome (and encouraged) to visit the offices of their Representative if they would like to.

[laundry_queen]

108. That is a problem.

They should just screen anyone regardless. Screw the damn pins.
And yes, I realize I'm arguing something completely different right now. I can walk and chew gum.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

112. I think they should screen everyone too.

The only ones exempt are MCs, and there wouldn't be a problem if they'd just wear their pins like they're supposed to.

[laundry_queen]

116. Yeah but I just can't help but think pins are the wrong way to go.

Are they easily forged? If so, that could be a problem.
Sorry, just thinking out loud now.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

118. I don't know how they'd get an original to make a forgery.

[laundry_queen]

120. Point taken. n/t

[Marie26]

115. On this completely

different issue, I totally agree w/you. Everyone should have to go through security. This "exception" seems more like a pander to Congressmen's egos - like they're too important to go through a line like everyone else. What's to prevent a terrorist from swiping a lapel pin?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

92. It's a little different

It's an ID card, not unlike your driver's license, and they have a hole in them, such that you can apply a clip if you'd like to wear it on your clothing. Most choose not to, and I've never seen a MC do it.

Still, it would extremely difficult to tell, on sight, that she was a Congresswoman and not a staffer, even if she were wearing it on her clothing.

[Marie26]

100. Ah, thanks!

I doubt that she was wearing it as well, & as you point out, it wouldn't make much difference if she was.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

Any time!

:toast:

Thank you for your comments!

[laundry_queen]

111. Thanks, that was helpful as well. n/t

[onenote]

89. Extremely unlikely she was wearing her ID

Members have two forms of ID -- the member pin and a member ID "badge" or "card". In 15 years of working with folks on the Hill, I can't recall ever seeing a member of congress wearing their "badge". Staffers always wear them (they don't have pins, just badges), typically on a lanyard of some kind around their neck. I've always figured that one of the reasons that members get pins is so that they don't have to wear the badges which (a) look geeky (b) could lead to someone mistaking them for staff, which would bother many members' egos.

In any event, my bet is that Ms McKinney didn't have her pin with her at all and had her badge in a pocket or purse. I'd be shocked if she was wearing it.

onenote

[mondo joe]

Thanks, onenote.

Is your sense that most do wear their pins?

[onenote]

164. some do, some don't

I couldn't say whether most do or don't. My sense (and I checked with a close friend who is a 30 year Hill veteran) is that (a) a number of the women do not; (b) some of the more senior members do not; (c) a lot of the more junior members do.

onenote

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

95. Thanks Onenote

Nice to see another Hill vet speak up. I haven't encountered a single person who's worked on the Hill who thinks McKinney was right in this.

[onenote]

127. assumptions by some that the Capitol Hill cop was in the wrong bother me

I've had my share of unpleasant contact with overbearing, self-righteous local police. But over the years, I've never had a bad experience with Capitol Hill police. They have to deal with some of the biggest egos (and I'm not just talking about members, but staff, lobbyists, celebrities). In my experience they always been polite, professional, even when needing to be firm. And, to be honest, I'm trying to recall if I've ever seen anyone challenge a Capitol Hill cop. I've seen folks make faces, but they still do what they're told, whether its to go back through the metal detector several times, take off their coats, not cut in line, etc. etc.

I don't know exactly what happened here, so I'm keeping an open mind on this particular incident. But anyone who assumes that the cop was in the wrong here is doing so with no foundation as far as I'm concerned.

onenote

[laundry_queen]

84. Yes but if a congressperson

isn't required to go through screening, and her ID identifies her as a congressperson, why the need for the pin?
This is my sticking point - I can't get past the fact she had an ID on. I'd like to know what was said after she showed her ID. Surely a little push pin can't be more important than an ID. And if it is then shame on whoever came up with the security measures.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

86. Take issue with the measures if you want to.

That is rather irrelevant. The officer was following the proper protocol, as it currently is. And Rep. McKinney was also in violation of that protocol, as it currently is.

[laundry_queen]

94. I'd also like to know...

if other people 'forget' to follow proper protocol (the PIN) and if they are treated in the same manner. That would reveal a lot.
You could argue that 10 people on the freeway were speeding, but if they only stop the black person, then say, "well they WERE breaking the law", it's still racism. :shrug:
Again, we don't have the whole story.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

98. Yes they are.

As I've said above, and elsewhere, I've personally been with high ranking white male Democrats that have been stopped for not wearing their pin.

[laundry_queen]

102. I see.

Well, that directly contradicts what McKinney said on CNN yesterday, so you can see the quandry I'm in.
The accused vs some person on the 'net.
:dilemma:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

106. I might just be some person on the 'net, but...

I've met a lot of other DUers who can vouch for my identity and what I do for a living. Plus, said accused has a stake in covering her own ass, does she not? Finally, you could make an encyclopedia based solely on untrue statements made by politicians and lawyers trying to cover their own ass. Hell, you could make one just on the Bush administration alone. And, just to say it's not only evil Republicans that do it, there's that whole "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" and "what is the meaning of 'is'?" thing too.

[laundry_queen]

114. Chill.

I wasn't trying to diss you. I was saying exactly that, I'm in a quandry, BECAUSE of exactly what you just posted about politicians trying to cover their own ass. I simply meant that one sort of cancels the other out and I must make up my own mind based on the facts, which is exactly what I'm trying to discover. :)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

119. I'm sorry if I came off as hostile there.

I was perfectly calm - just shedding a little more light on your quandry, that's all. I apologize.

[laundry_queen]

122. NP. :) n/t

[mondo joe]

88. Just the same, even if the measures aren't good enough,

I'd expect legislators - of all people - to respect the rules.

[onenote]

91. you are assuming her ID was visible -- probably wasn't

see post #89.

[rman]

71. "then she hit him", "striking" - assume much?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

72. Is anyone disputing that?

If so, I haven't seen it.

And I've already made an edit for spin. Don't like it? Make your own post.

[rman]

74. No need to tell me what to do,

i can find my way around on my own.

[jmaier]

73. Simply the best post I've read on the topic--period. n-t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

76. Thank you (nt)

[philosophie_en_rose]

75. She had ID, and there's no evidence that she "slapped" him.

Some reports say that she "poked" him, some say that she "pushed" him, some say that she also just "touched" him. All of which are possible. But you don't know what happened.

It is just as likely that the officer grabbed her and she reacted instinctively. The burden of proof in on the prosecution.

Cynthia McKinney gets a lot of threats. And ANY member of Congress that is grabbed should worry for their safety.

A member of Congress that shows ID deserves to be treated with respect. If the Capitol Police have no protocol besides pins, then they are ridiculously likely to be fooled by rogue pin-makers. That is why Identification (harder to counterfeit) is also valid.

There are a lot of unanswered questions here. Did the officer continue to grab at her, after she showed ID? How did he touch McKinney? How did McKinney touch him? McKinney doesn't have to prove anything. Those that are willing to convict without fully understanding the situation are the ones that have something to prove.

At most, this is a misunderstanding. It's interesting that people have already convicted her of a felony.

[mondo joe]

79. Even if she had the ID, she didn';t show it until after

she was stopped. It's not even clear that she was wearing it.

There certainly are a lot of unanswered questions that, once known, could support either side in the dispute.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

80. I didn't say she slapped him.

I said she hit him. That's as vague as I can make it.

As far as IDs go, every employee on the Hill has an ID. They all have to go through the screening, which is why MCs have the lapel pins. Take issue with that requirement all you want, but that's protocol, and the officer is supposed to follow it.

The law is black and white on this issue - you strike an officer, you are guilty of a felony. I'm not sure what's so interesting about that.

[meisje]

93. Many Du'ers make decisions based on emotion, not the facts

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

99. Your post couldn't be truer. (nt)

[mondo joe]

107. I guess so. I don't like to think that. I would rather it weren't

the case. But I guess so.

[flashdebadge]

191. Based on some of the respones about this matter I'd have to agree.

[Ron Mexico]

110. My kneejerk reaction was to

defend McKinney until she played the race card (as I stated at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2550236&mesg_id=2550325). Now that she's done it, as I did deeper, I'm starting to view things the way you do - and the more I read on this the more I realize that I'd never cut slack to a Repug in this situation.

If I get proof that racism was involved, I'll be the most apologetic person on the board - but right now I can't stand behind her just because the letter next to her name is the letter I look for in the booth.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

121. Thanks for your comments

That's part of why I made this post. I don't think people are looking at the facts involved - just going on their knee-jerk reaction.

[mmonk]

125. I personally don't think racism was involved either.

That it being said, I don't see any common sense or reason being involved either.

[lastliberalintexas]

126. I'll call you very conservative instead

You and all the posters on this thread agreeing with you, by the way. The belief that we are innocent until *proven* guilty, knowing that the burden of proof and persuasion rests with the government in any criminal proceeding, and the state of the American media are enough to force me to withhold judgment either way at this point. I am neither defending nor condemning either party for their alleged actions- but I am saying that the people who tend to pre-judge situations/people are also the types of people likely to vote to convict on a jury and likely to be conservative on the political spectrum. Jury consultant studies bear this out time and again.


The only thing I am absolutely certain about in this event is that the Capitol police officers are expected to recognize the members of Congress. I don't have a cite for that claim, so you're of course free to not believe me on this point. But I worked in DC and I know what expectations are for the cops and other security personnel on the Hill, even if I don't have a link to prove it to you.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

128. I'm not a judge or jury.

I know that. I don't bear the weight of law. I know that too. I also know I'm entitled to an opinion.

I'm not sure when you worked here in DC, but I assure that is no longer the case.

[Llewlladdwr]

172. "innocent until *proven* guilty"

Is a legal concept only applicable in the Courts. As a private citizen I'm perfectly free to make up my own mind concerning a person's guilt or innocence at any time I choose.

[lastliberalintexas]

193. Yes, you are free to do so

Though it might not be such a good idea to make up your mind about such things based on early media reports. Otherwise, those "Arab guys" might just be in prison for the OK City bombing and Richard Jewel might still be in prison for the Olympic Park bombing.

As in other areas of our life, we should judge those charged with crimes as we would wish to be judged if we were the accused.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

200. "Those arab guys" denied OK City.

Rep. McKinney isn't denying the incident. She's blaming it on racism because they can't keep up with her changing her hairstyle. Or at least that's what she's last said.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

130. 100% Agree With You And I Applaud You For Your Objectivity.

Awesome post. I'm glad there are in fact still others that have maintained their sanity and sense of reasoning.

Though I'm still amazed at how rabid some have been in automatic defense (some, not all), as if reality or facts don't matter, I'm glad I'm not alone in seeing the overwhelming simplicity of this situation for what it was.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

134. Thank you

:toast:

[LSK]

137. actually 1-3 ARE in dispute

[mondo joe]

139. Not wearing the lapel pin is in dispute?

From whom?

From McKinney's statement: "I did not have on my Congressional pin but showed the Police Officer my Congressional ID."

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

[LSK]

145. oops, ok 2-3

[mondo joe]

146. Just to be technical, I don't think the touching is in

dispute either.

That there was physical contact - to my knowledge - is commonly agreed. The nature of the touch, as the OP observes, is in dispute, but not that there was contact.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

142. Please cite.

I haven't seen any such refutations by Rep. McKinney.

[LSK]

144. maybe a lawyer is telling her to say nothing ?

Wouldnt there have to be burden of proof that she actually did this?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

147. Uhm, no.

I'm saying she hasn't said anything to dispute the facts. I can't prove she's never said anything.

[no name no slogan]

151. CLENIS!!!!

It's another distraction from the GOP Congresscritters to detract from the fact that 1) DeLay RESIGNED under a cloud of suspicion, and 2) two of his aides copped a plea to get lighter sentences.

Nothing that shouting CLENIS!!!! over and over won't fix.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

154. I won't dispute that.

And we took the bait - hook, line, and sinker.

I just couldn't stand all of the misinformation I kept seeing about this, and the outrage upon which it was built. It's ridiculous.

Then again, I still say if Rep. McKinney had any sense, she'd have just apologized and this ALL would've gone away in a heartbeat.

[Jigarotta]

157. your points...

1) Rep. McKinney was not wearing her lapel pin, as proper protocol asks all MCs to do. She does not refute this.

I see you missed the part that not wearing the pin is not uncommon for members of congress.


2) Rep. McKinney was asked to stop three times by the officer. She did not.

So 'someone' says. Suppose she was on her phone at the time and didn't hear him? Is that possible?


3) The officer touched or grabbed Rep. McKinney somewhere and then she hit him. Details of where she was touched and how she hit him are unclear, but those basic facts are not under dispute.

I see you give the officer some options, touched or grabbed, but none are given to McKinney - she 'hit' him. So why is it a 'fact' she hit him?


4) This one seems to be a common misconception, but Capitol Police are not required to know all MCs on sight. No one is. That is why they wear lapel pins.

Is it true that pages are required to know each congressperson? If so, you'd think security personnel should be required to as well. Lapel pins are a piece of jewelery. They don't have a name or picture.


5) Striking an officer of the law is a felony.
what if that officer was the first one to strike, jab, poke, etc., unprovoked?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

160. Answers

1) It's not uncommon for MCs not wearing pins to get stopped by security either.
2) Bullshit. You're inches from a security checkpoint - you know who's telling you to stop.
3) If you've got a more vague term for "hit", go for it. But it's not been refuted that she physically did something to the officer.
4) You're asking me exactly what I explained was a misconception. Did you not read it?
5) Doesn't matter. You cannot strike an officer.

[Jigarotta]

161. counter...

1) It's not uncommon for MCs not wearing pins to get stopped by security either.

so you agree there is no absolute in this, just a bit of 'nuance' once in a while. They don't all wear their pins all the time and not all of them are stopped at security for the omission. I want to know more about that nuance part, is all.


2) Bullshit. You're inches from a security checkpoint - you know who's telling you to stop.

bull to you, deux. Have you seen a video and had a measuring tape to confirm the distance? Did McKinney and/or the cop or anyone say 'inches' for the record?. Please provide a link if so because I haven't heard this from any outside source.


3) If you've got a more vague term for "hit", go for it. But it's not been refuted that she physically did something to the officer.

a reminder: nothing has been refuted or confirmed. My guess is that the cop physically did something to her first and her reaction, whatever it was, may have been involuntary. Possible scenario: She's on the phone and doesn't hear the cop call out to her. He's called her three times and on the third walks up behind her and grabs her, taps her, whatever, she's not expecting this, turns around and reacts like most women would, in surprise. Maybe it was a plow to the chops, that's not such an unreasonable reaction.


4) You're asking me exactly what I explained was a misconception. Did you not read it?

You'll have to give me some other information than your say so. I have been hearing that that is part of thier homework and duties. I am still not absolutely sure about this, but you seem to be solid on this so can you give me any links/sources to support what you say.

5) Doesn't matter. You cannot strike an officer.

there are exceptions - surely you don't think that defending yourself against a cop that is breaking the law, is more so unlawful? If a cop started beating up on my kid for no reason, I'd be sticking to the law of mamabear nature and rip into him. sue me.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

162. volley

1) The nuance is sometimes they get away with it, sometimes they don't. But no where is it within protocol to ignore an officer when they don't recognize. There's no nuance with the bottom line.

2) The way the halls are set up, she'd have to be on another floor entirely for it not to be bullshit that she didn't know who was telling her to stop.

3) There are no set of circumstances in which ANYONE would be justified hitting ANY person within view of the police inside the House Office Buildings. NONE. You are not going to be mugged in the House of Representatives, nor are you going to be assaulted. That's why they have the security checkpoint that Rep. McKinney tried to blow through in the first place! It's a completely and totally egregious reaction.

4) How do I prove to you that they don't have to do something? Isn't the burden of proof on those who claim that it IS required of them to do it? After all, you're not going to find in writing anywhere the words "Don't bother memorizing what MCs look like. It doesn't matter." You will, however, find "It is the obligation of the Capitol Police to recognize all Members of Congress on sight" within their manual. If you're going to argue that point, the burden's on YOU to find it, not me.

5) There are very, very few exceptions. The officer has to be using necessary and deadly force for you to be able to justify striking an officer. A jury might acquit you if there was really no reason to be beating your son, but that circumstance isn't even CLOSE to being true here. Not a single person has reported that the officer did anything more than grab Rep. McKinney. That is not even close to a situation where you'd need to defend yourself.

[onenote]

165. may I cut in? and a rumor I heard

1. Some wear their pins, some don't. Its not uncommon for the women and some of the more senior members not to (for example, I wouldn't be surprised if John Dingell or John Conyers don't bother, although they may). Younger members probably wear theirs more than more senior members. When members go through the member-only entrances, they probably are recognized and not stopped. If they go through a public entrance, which is what I'm told was the case with McKinney, there's a greater chance you'll be stopped if you don't have a pin. In my (15 year) experience, members use the members-only entrance far more frequently than they use the public entrance.

2. The way the security checkpoints are set up in House or Senate office building -- even the public entrance -- it would be unlikely a person wouldn't know they were being addressed by a cop. Not impossible, but unlikely.

3. My understanding is that the cop tried to get her attention and when she paid no heed, he caught her by the arm. How forcefully? Don't know.

4. Capitol Hill police know a lot of members by sight. But they're not requried to and its not unheard of for a cop not to recognize a member, particularly at the public entrance.

5. Cop says stop. Person doesn't stop. Cop physically restrains person. Person retaliates: person, not cop, guilty of offense. That's pretty basic.

Finally, here's the rumor (and its just a rumor, although from a pretty well connected source): this is being driven in significant measure by the police union. The cop was prepared to let it go, but the union, for reasons that aren't clear, feels compelled to push it.

onenote

[Jigarotta]

166. thanks, onenote.

good stuff and appreciated.

[mwb970]

195. Just curious: was OJ completely innocent as well? (n/t)

[Jigarotta]

210. huh?

how'd you get to that from there?
I can't and no one else at this time here can, say McKinney is completely innocent. But I sure can wonder why her possible misdeed is such a big deal or if this is just yet another setup to keep the soap opera crowd entertained.

[merh]

171. If she had "STRUCK" the officer

she would have been arrested on the spot.

:hi:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

185. Don't you think it's possible...

that once they realized she WAS a MC that they backed off to be damn sure of what they were doing first? :hi:

[merh]

201. No, if a cop is "assaulted" or if the resisting arrest is truly

resisting, the cop would act right then and there to protect himself, the public and his/her attacker. That's what they are trained to do.

You don't go, I think it happened but will wait till later to figure it out.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

202. Okay, but... she's still not denying she hit him.

[merh]

206. Really

"Earlier today I had an unfortunate confrontation with a Capitol Hill Police Officer."

I have read that it was a poke, a punch, a whack, a strike, a slap.

I have read he grabbed her and she defended herself. The point is, if he was harmed or in danger, he would have acted then and there and force is essential to the "crime". See below

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?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=832685&mesg_id=840404

[onenote]

209. not sure that this helps your argument

force or threat of force. how much force? well, not much apparently. For example, its pretty well settled that spitting at someone is sufficient to give rise to a charge of assault. Its a pretty low threshhold, as the cases cited in your post demonstrate.

onenote

[merh]

211. Go back to the ACTUAL STATUTE

and the case law interpretting it.

Force and/or fear of the force is an ESSENTIAL ELEMENT of the crime.

Let me just say the cross examination of the cop would be the highlight of the case if the prosecution is foolish enought to file the case and recommend arrest.

[onenote]

213. okay, but how much "force" is "force"

The following jury instruction was found not to be at odds with section 111:

"What does the word forcibly mean as used in the statute? It means what is generally accepted as the meaning of that word. Congress has specifically prescribed force as an essential element of the crime. If there is force, no matter how slight, even touching the hand of a correctional officer, who is at the time engaged in the perfomrance of his duty, and with the intention to impede, interfere....that would be sufficient." 452 F.2d at 699.

I have no doubt that at some point "incidental" contact falls short of assault. But if McKinney was attempting to physically contact the officer (and thus the contact was not "incidental") your cross-examination of the cop is not going to get very far. Remember, section 111 embodies three different types of assault: simple assault, which can be found without any physical contact; "all other cases" assault, which requires physical contact; and assault with bodily injury. So if either of the first two categories of assault are charged, questions about whether the cop was injured will simply trigger an objection from the prosecution and that objection almost certainly would be sustained.

onenote

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

214. ...and that's why law school is required.

:D

[merh]

221. Law school does not foster and/or produce common sense.

The statute is pretty simple and force is an essential element. :hi:

[merh]

215. Let's see if I can try to help you understand

BRING IT ON

This would be a hoot before a jury -

================================
Defense: Oh, so you thought Ms McKinney was resisting you?

Officer X: Yes

Defense: Why didn't you arrest her at the time?

Officer X: Because she showed me her badge.

Defense: Couldn't anybody show you a badge?

Officer X: I suppose so.

Defense: Are there other procedures you are trained to follow to try to prevent entrance by someone using a forged pin or ID badge?

Officer X: I don't understand the question.

Defense: Do you have to study anything as part of your job, like the photos of the Congress members?

Officer X: Yes, face recognition is important, we study the photos.

Defense: Why didn't you recognized Ms. McKinney?

Officer X: She changed her hair style.

Defense: Oh, I see. And when you reached out to stop her after you called her name a couple of times, did you tap her, touch her or grab her?

Officer: I suppose I grabbed her.

Defense: And was it loud in that room that day?

Officer X: Yes.

Defense: So when you grabbed her what happened?

Officer X: She turned back around and (insert description of the day here "poke" "punched" "whacked" "struck" "slapped") me.

Defense: Isn't it true Officer that as soon as she realized that you, a police officer grabbed her, didn't she apologize and didn't she cooperate with you?

Officer X: Yes

Defense: Did she threaten you in any way?

Officer X: No

Defense: Did her reaction to your grabbing her, did she have a great deal of force behind it, did she hurt you?

Officer X: No.

Defense: You didn't seek medical care after the incident, did you?

Officer X: No.

Defense: Did you need a band aid or an aspirin after the incident?

Officer X: No

Defense: Did Ms McKinney cooperate with you once she realized that you were the police?

Officer X: Yes

Defense: Did you arrest after she hit/punched/poked/whacked/slapped you?

Officer X: No

Defense: Why not?
=========================================

I think you get the drift, there is no way this incident can be perceived as resisting and/or assault (felony or simple) given she did not harm the officer and he was not in fear of further harm to himself or the public and he did not arrest her on the spot.

I don't have time right now to research or sheppardize the very, very old case that you cite, but I would venture to guess that it is distinquishable from this case and it probably has been expounded upon.

[onenote]

217. Or maybe it would go more like this

Of course, it might go more like this, than the script you posed:

================================
Defense: Oh, so you thought Ms McKinney was resisting you?

Officer X: Yes

Defense: Why didn't you arrest her at the time?

Officer X: Because after she struck me she identified herself and showed me her Congressional member ID.

Defense: Couldn't anybody show you a badge?

Officer X: No. Only members have member IDs. I've never heard of anyone attempting to forge one and they're distinctive enough that it would be very hard to do so.

Defense: Are there other procedures you are trained to follow to try to prevent entrance by someone using a forged pin or ID badge?

Officer X: I don't understand the question.

Defense: Do you have to study anything as part of your job, like the photos of the Congress members?

Officer X: Yes, face recognition is important, we study the photos.

Defense: Why didn't you recognized Ms. McKinney?

Officer X: She changed her hair style. Also, when most members of Congress enter through the public entrance tend to pause long enough to make eye contact with an officer as they go around security. Congresswoman McKinney did not pause and given that I also was monitoring the entry into the building of those who were going through the security device, I was unable to get a good look at her. I had to make a snap judgment and I felt it the proper course was to ask her to stop her so I could confirm her identity.

Defense: Oh, I see. And when you reached out to stop her after you called her name a couple of times, did you tap her, touch her or grab her?

Officer: I didn't call her name. I said "Ma'am" and when she failed to stop I grabbed her arm to prevent her from moving out of the security entrance and into the main part of the building..

Defense: And was it loud in that room that day?

Officer X: Not unusually so.

Defense: So when you grabbed her what happened?

Officer X: She turned back around and (insert description of the day here "poke" "punched" "whacked" "struck" "slapped") me.

Defense: Isn't it true Officer that as soon as she realized that you, a police officer grabbed her, didn't she apologize and didn't she cooperate with you?

Officer X: I'm fairly certain she realized who I was at the time she struck me since I was wearing a uniform and she had turned to face me.

Defense: Did she threaten you in any way?

Officer X: Not verbally, no.

Defense: Did her reaction to your grabbing her, did she have a great deal of force behind it, did she hurt you?

PROSECUTION: OBJECTION. Injury is not an element of the offense charged.

COURT: Sustained.


Defense: You didn't seek medical care after the incident, did you?

PROSECUTION: OBJECTION. Injury is not an element of the offense charged.

COURT: Sustained. Counsel, I'm advising you not to continue asking about injury or harm.

Defense: Did you need a band aid or an aspirin after the incident?

PROSECUTION: OBJECTION

COURT: Sustained. Counsel, I've warned you once. I'm directing the jury that it is not relevant to the crime charged whether or not officer x sustained any harm. Counsel, you continue this line of questioning at your own risk.

Defense: Did Ms McKinney cooperate with you once she realized that you were the police?

Officer X: After she struck me she backed away and retrieved her member card from her wallet/purse/pocket.

Defense: Did you arrest after she hit/punched/poked/whacked/slapped you?

Officer X: No

Defense: Why not?

Officer X: Once she had identified herself, she no longer posed any threat. There was no need to take her into custody at the time. She didn't appear to pose a flight risk.

_________________________________

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY PROSECUTION:

Prosecution: Have you ever directed who was trying to enter a Congressional office building without going through the security check to stop?

Officer: Yes. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen on occasion.

Prosecution: And what procedure do you follow.

Officer: I ask the person to stop.

Prosecution: Is that what happened when Ms McKinney tried to enter without going through security.

Officer: Yes. I called out to her "Ma'am, you have to stop. WHen she didn't respond I repeated the command two more times. When it was apparent that she wasn't going to stop, I reached out and grabbed her arm.

Prosecution: Is that typically what happens when you direct someone to stop.

Officer: No sir. Typically, when I ask someone to stop so they can either identify themselves or go through the security device, they immediately comply.

Prosecution: Has anyone ever struck (or whatever word we're using) you in response to your command?

Officer:No sir.

Prosecution: One last question. WHen Congresswoman McKinney struck (or whatever) you, was the physical contact inadvertent, such as a glancing blow?

Officer: No sir. It was not inadvertent. She clearly was attempting to use force to resist my effort to restrain her from entering the building.

Prosecution. Thank you. No further questions

[merh]

218. Like I said

Either way, get it in front of a jury and see the capitol police made fools of.

NO ONE, not any cop of any caliber or position would say that the ID badge or the lapel pin could not be forged.

Everything can be forged.

He killed is credibility at that point. :rofl:

[onenote]

219. of course, in my script, he didn't say "could not be forged"

Just that he'd never heard of one being forged and that there are features of the id that are distinctive enough that forgery would be hard . Don't see how his credibility would be called into question at all.


(BTW, I'm not positive, but I think the member cards are watermarked).


onenote

[merh]

220. He couldn't recognize a congresswoman with a new hair style

(1 of 14 afro americans in congress) but he is able to testify as to the legitimacy of an ID because of watermarks. LOL

Yeah, he'd be believable :sarcasm:

[onenote]

222. and here's what the prosecution does

They ask the officer to describe what happened. He indicates that McKinney rushed past the security device and was past him and he only got a brief glimpse of her face. He testifies that he didn't recognize her. The prosecution enters into evidence McKinney's official portrait, which probably is the picture in the "face book" that officers refer to in attempting to learn to recognize members. I think (but am not sure) that this is that picture

Then the prosecutor introduces a more current picture of the Congresswoman, such as this
He then asks whether McKinney's office had provided the Capitol Hill police with an updated picture. He says no.

You may think the officer will have a credibility problem. I disagree.

This whole thing should never have gotten this far.

onenote

[merh]

224. LOL, you think a jury is gonna be all white?

Or do all of the african americans you know look alike? You truly haven't a clue how african americans are able to distinquish members of their community, hair changes or no hair changes. Your ignorance is definitely showing. It is an insult to say her hair change is so dramatic that she is not recognizable.

Oh my, you make me laugh with this.

And the defense will introduce into evidence through witness after witness that white congress members aren't stopped in this manner.

And they will introduce into evidence through the body guards that work for Ms McKinney and her staff that the same group of folks pass through the "doors" all the time and that, because of the numerous death threats made against Ms McKinney, Ms McKinney is never alone and always has a recognizable group surrounding her.

No, it should have never gotten this far.

White congress critters don't have guards grabbing them.

Another fun thing to do is the present Mr. Cop with various photographs of the 535 congress critters and ask him if he recognizes them as members of congress, like flash cards. He either recognizes them or he proves he is an incompetent and he reacted because he was not doing his job right.

All sorts of fun ways to embarass the capitol police and to show how this administration has not made the halls of congress, let alone the nation, safer.

Bring it on!

[onenote]

225. of course you'd never get your questions past the judge

Any prosecutor worth his salt would object to the questions you postulate on the grounds of relevancy. And the judge is going to agree. You seem to forget that it won't be the cop that's on trial. Whether or not he recognized McKinney or any other member of congress simply is not legally relevant. He asked a person entering a secure building to stop and they didn't and when they didn't he attempted to restrain her and she phsyically resisted. It simply will be up to the jury to determine whether her action amounted to forcible assault or resistance to an officer of the law in the performance of his duties. Her possible lines of defense are pretty much limited to arguing that her action did not amount to forcible assault. I suppose she could argue that she didn't hear him, but its not clear why that would be relevant. The case law indicates that a person can be convicted of assault under section 111 even if the person didn't know the person he/she was assaulting was a cop and even if there was no intent to cause bodily harm. All that matters is whether the person who was on the receiving end of the forcible contact was a cop and whether he/she was acting within the scope of his duties. THe latter point does not seem to be in issue: it is the cop's duty to ensure that no one who is not authorized to do so enters the building. If he is uncertain, he has the right to demand anyone to stop and identify themselves and to prevent someone who does not follow his command from entering the building.

I'm glad you're having a chuckle, but it simply reflects your lack of knowledge of the legal issues and the procedures that would occur.

And frankly I'm afraid its you seems to be engaging in racial stereotyping. African Americans on DC juries are not reluctant to convict African-Americans and its pretty lame to suggest that they won't be able to look at this through the eyes of an officer who probably will testify he barely got a glimpse at McKinney before she was past him. Most people in DC are used to going through some form of security (hell, every member of the jury is going to have to do it every day when they enter the courthouse) and there's no reason to think that, in such a situation,when you're asked to stop, you stop.

onenote

onenote

[merh]

228. If the officer's excuse is that Ms McKinney looked so different

because of a new hairstyle, the jury will see through that bogus excuse.

And it is relevant, was the cop properly doing his job or did he just overreact and was he profiling?

I am well aware of the legal issues and procedures.

One of the most important principles in our judicial system is that a defendant is allowed to defend themself.

:hi:

[onenote]

230. Apparently you learned law from watching the Practice or Boston Legal

In a real courtroom, the judge is going to limit the questioning to the facts that relevant to the legal issues. As I said, my guess is that the cop would testify that he didn't get a chance to recognize her because she blew past him so fast and that with her new hair style and no good look at her face, he felt it was his duty to make stop her to confirm her identity. Whether he would recognize any or every other member of Congress is simply not probative of anything given that testimony and a judge wouldn't let it in. Of course defendants can defend themselves. But they still have to stick to what is legally relevant.

Let me put it another way. Let's say two cars are driving down the road, both with burned out headlights. A cop, engaging in racial profiling, let's one car go by because its driven by a white person, but stops the second car because it was driven by an African-American. He admits to using racial profiling. That's bad, and the cop should be disciplined. But it doesn't mean that he had no right to stop someone with a burned out headlight and it doesn't mean that person with the burned out headlight would be excused if they responded to being pulled over by resisting arrest. While McKinney wasn't required to go through security, she was required to obey the command of a police officer. And when she didn't, he was justified in restraining her. Assuming, of course, that is what happened.

Sorry.

onenote

[merh]

232. So the cop testifies to "he didn't get a chance to recognize her"

and the defense puts on witnesses that he did. They will testify to how many times she has been stopped by the capitol police and they will put on testimony that her photo was properly displayed in the offices because she had complained that the cops were not treating her fairly.

And you are creating the facts, you don't know how large and/or how loud the crowd was, you don't know if anyone could hear the cop, you are just assuming from your personal knowledge that the cop could be heard.

And you are not correct that he could "RESTRAIN" her (grab her), cops just can't grab you because you piss them off.

You know very little about police standards and I think it is you that watch too much t.v.

:hi:

[onenote]

235. sorry but you're wrong about a couple of things

If he testifies that she blew past him before he got a good look at her, testimony about whether she's been stopped on other occasions simply isn't relevant. Not probabitive of anytning (and if it is, its probabiitve of the fact that she probably was aware she was being asked to stop but chose to ignore the command).
I don't know how loud the crowd was. However, in fifteen years of entering House office buildings I can't recall a single time when it was so loud that a cop asking someone to do something (whether it is to take off their coat before going through the metal detector or to stop in order to be "wanded" couldn't be heard, and that includes lots of times where the security areas was crowded with visiting high school students on a field trip. So, maybe it was loud. And if it was, there should be plenty of witnesses to testify to that fact. Funny thing is, no one has come forward to suggest that.

And if all someone did was "piss off" a cop, no they couldn't restrain them. But if you don't think a cop charged with the duty of protecting the security in a House office building can't put his or her hands on a person who fails to obey or otherwise respond to a direct command that they not proceed, I'd say it was you who had little knowledge of police standards.

THis has been fun, but its late and I'm off to bed. Gotta be in court tomorrow.

onenote

[merh]

236. We shall see what comes of this mess.

I still say, if they indict on that statute, they have a hard row to hoe and, if it goes to trial, the fun will be making an ass of that cop and the capitol hill police procedures.

Hope you aren't the prosecutor, if you are, you have your work cut out of you.

[onenote]

287. how easy or hard will depend on the facts

Not a prosecutor, by the way.
But to clarify: the general rule is that it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the alleged perpetrator of an assault on a federal officer knew that they were assaulting a federal officer. If this wasn't the law, it would be impossible to convict for assaulting an undercover agent.

The exception,which you allude to, is that if the defendant argues that they were acting in self-defense in response to actions initiated by the officer, then whether they knew that the person was an officer is relevant. In other words, to get off, the accused must establish (1) that they were entitled to act in self-defense and (2) that they were unaware that the person was a law officer.

Whether McKinney can make out a valid self-defense argument will depend on facts not yet clear: what was the nature of the "grabbing" by the officer and was she unaware that it was an officer that grabbed her.

I believe that it will be strength/weakness of these particular facts that may determine whether a grand jury returns an indictment. I can't say at this point. However,one fact that is indisputable is that the officer was in uniform, so it will be signficant as to whether McKinney saw/heard the cop before she responded with physical contact. If she did, she's got trouble. If she didn't, then the issue is going to be whether the grabbing warranted a self-defense response. The prosecution, presumably, will try to convince the jury that the grabbing was not so threatening as to warrant striking the officer; McKinney will argue that it was or that the striking was unintentional as she attempted, reasonably, to pull away.

As you say, time will tell.

onenote

[merh]

239. Criminal intent is required

We are not to be understood as implying that the defendant's state of knowledge is never a relevant consideration under 111. The statute does require a criminal intent, and there may well be circumstances in which ignorance of the official status of the person assaulted or resisted negates the very existence of mens rea. For example, where an officer fails to identify himself or his purpose, his conduct in certain circumstances might reasonably be interpreted as the unlawful use of force directed either at the defendant or his property. In a situation of that kind, one might be justified in exerting an element of resistance, and an honest mistake of fact would not be consistent with criminal intent. 19
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=420&invol=671

Suppose she did not hear the cop (noise is relevant), she assumes he knows who she is because the cops are supposed to be able to recognizes the faces of the congress people and her face is one that has more focus given her complaints relative to their failures to recognize her and her photo pinned up in the offices (and she is one of the most public members). She goes past him, thinking that he gave her a nod, he calls to her, but because of the noise, she didn't hear him. He grabs her from behind and given she has had threats made against her life, she reacts by striking him. Is there criminal intent?

All that I discussed in the other posts is relevant to proving no criminal intent.

:hi:

[kwassa]

231. There are many more African-Americans in Congress, like 42

please refer to:

http://www.congressionalblackcaucus.net/

but you need to know something about Washington, D.C.

Most of the the lower level federal staff are black, so there are black people everywhere. Many of the Capitol police are black.

Traditionally, the managerial class is white, the support black, the unique system of our nation's capital.

This whole thing is much ado about nothing.

I've been through the security systems at the OEOB, next to the White House. Badges are everything.

[merh]

238. Thank you for correcting me.

And she showed her badge.

The question is did he grab her, did she react and then realizing he was a cop, showed her badge?

If that is the case, it will be difficult to prove criminal intent, a requirement under the statute.

It is much ado about nothing, it should never have gotten to this stage.

[Marie26]

233. Force can be any physical contact. nt

[merh]

237. Criminal intent is required,

We are not to be understood as implying that the defendant's state of knowledge is never a relevant consideration under 111. The statute does require a criminal intent, and there may well be circumstances in which ignorance of the official status of the person assaulted or resisted negates the very existence of mens rea. For example, where an officer fails to identify himself or his purpose, his conduct in certain circumstances might reasonably be interpreted as the unlawful use of force directed either at the defendant or his property. In a situation of that kind, one might be justified in exerting an element of resistance, and an honest mistake of fact would not be consistent with criminal intent. 19

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=420&invol=671

[Marie26]

241. Of course it is

I just posted briefly that "force" can be any unwanted physical contact, not necessarily a punch or hit.

[merh]

242. if there is intent

So much more goes into it than she hit a cop and she is bad.

[Marie26]

243. Why are you arguing w/me?

Do you see how I am not disagreeing w/you? I'm aware of the standard for assault. I chimed in on the definition of "force," not the definition of intent, or the standard for conviction, or anything else.

[merh]

248. I'm not arguing

I am expounding upon your statement.

Why are you so touchy?

[Marie26]

251. This whole board is touchy

You seemed to be implying that I don't know these things.

[merh]

254. It would be nice if you know them, that you share them

rather than leave it out there that "force" is enough to constitute a crime.

IMHO, that is the problem with this issue, not enough information is available - we don't have it - and those posting about it don't share all that must be considered, they just make sweeping statements.

peace :hi:

[Marie26]

261. Don't know how anyone could think that.

I think you've got some reading comprehension problems. Where, exactly, did I say that force is enough to constitute a crime? How could you possibly interpret it that way? All I posted was a 5-word post on what constitutes "force", not what constitutes the crime. If you read it that way, it's your problem. So, you're saying you were arguing w/me, cause you thought I was somehow making a sweeping statement that "force is enough for a crime." That's not what I said, at all. But thanks for making me regret posting any contribution. I didn't feel like researching the whole thing, but if you'd like me to post the entire definition & application of this law, I could do that, since I actually know how to do legal research. I feel leery when non-lawyers start going into extensive detail about laws that they really might not know that much about.

[merh]

266. Go for it.

Enlighten us. Prove your skills.

Like I said, not arguing with you, just expounding upon what you stated. Check the links I have provided in my posts, they may help your research. :hi:

[Marie26]

269. OK, I'll try

It makes sense to do something productive rather than complain about the posts. I'll try to post something on this later today. Cool? :hi:

[merh]

272. Great, thanks

:hi:

[Marie26]

311. McKinney's got problems

McKinney will be accused of violating 18 USC 111 - "Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees" http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000111----000-.html This is a federal offense, with a three-tiered sentence. If the defendant is found guilty of "simple assault", he may be fined or imprisoned for up to a year; more serious assaults create an 8-year jail sentence. In addition, if the defendant assaulted the officer w/a deadly weapon, he may be imprisoned for up to twenty years.

In order to convict a defendant of this crime, the prosecutor must prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The elements of this offense are:

1.) Forcible assault against a person.
2.) Person assaulted was a federal officer engaged in performance of his official duties
3.) Defendant did such acts knowingly & willfully. (Intent element).

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a075.htm.

Taking the elements one by one -

1. "Forcible assault" - Since "assault" is not defined, the courts revert to the common law definition, which is the use of force; or a threat of force that causes the victim to reasonably anticipate bodily harm. "Force" is simply physical action against another person. It doesn't refer to only punches or hits, but can refer to any physical movement to contact another person. The force need not have resulted in actual physical injury or harm. Thus, if McKinney used any physical force against the officer, or threatened/attempted to use force, this element is satisfied. Almost every news story, & McKinney herself, have stated that she used some degree of force against the officer (though accounts differ as to whether she hit him, pushed him, or poked w/her cell phone.) However, these differences do not matter much, because each one involves the use of force when McKinney physically contacted the officer. Therefore, this element is satisfied.

2. "Federal officer" - this element is clearly present in this case. The alleged victim was a Capitol Policeman & stopped her while performing his official duties.

3. "Knowingly & willingly" - This simply means that the Defendant intended to assault the officer. (As opposed to, say, an accidental contact). Note that the Defendant did not have to know that the victim was in fact a federal officer. United States v. Feola This only means that she intended her physical action; she didn't have to intend to harm him. It's pretty clear that McKinney intended to use force in this case, although I guess you could argue it was a reflex. This is difficult, though, because a punch/grab/poke is not a physical reflex, and she must have intended to do these actions.

As far as I can tell, this is a fairly open & shut case against Ms. McKinney, and if this case proceeds to trial, it is likely she will be convicted. She does have one potential defense, however. She can argue that she believed the officer was a private citizen, and acted out of a "reasonable, good faith" belief that she needed to defend herself from assault. I think this is the lawyer's plan, because he keeps mentioning that she acted in "self-defense." However, this defense probably won't succeed either. McKinney can claim this, but the key is that it must be a "reasonable, good faith belief". According to the testimony, the officer "grabbed" her arm from behind. In order to have an altercation, she must first have spun around to "poke, hit, etc." the officer. At that point, she must've seen that he was an officer - the uniform is very distinctive & she's been at the Capitol for years. If she knew it was an officer, it doesn't matter how offensive his actions were - you cannot use force against a fed. officer. She would have to file a complaint instead. Since a jury probably will not believe that McKinney "reasonably" or in "good faith" believed that she was being assaulted by a private citizen, this defense probably will not work. Her actions seem to violate 18 USC 111, and therefore she may be convicted for simple assault against the officer.

So, if she did this, why didn't the officer arrest her on the spot? A very good reason - the Constitution prohibits it. Art. 1, sec. 6 of the Constitution states: "The Senators and Representatives.. shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html

This Article was written to prevent the Executive Branch (Capitol police) from interfering w/the duties of the Legislative Branch (Congressmen). Once she showed him her Congressional ID, he had to let her go. The Capitol Police had to go to a judge to obtain a warrant for her arrest later, which they promptly did. I suspect that her lawyers have advised her that she does not have a strong case, which is why she is now apologizing. At this point, McKinney's best hope is that the US Att.'s office simply drops this case. And I believe they should. Prosecutors have discretion to choose what cases they wish to prosecute & I cannot believe that this silly case is the best use of their time. However, if they do bring this to trial, I believe she will probably be convicted.

[merh]

312. .

dupe

[merh]

313. Oh, I believe you are mistaken.

To begin with, she WAS SUBJECT to arrest.

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.
Long v. Ansell, 293 U.S. 76 (1934) 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.
Williamson v. U.S., 207 U.S. 425 (1908) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=207&invol=425

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.

And for all that you cited, you failed to cite anything that negates a basic requirement necessary to convict. CRIMINAL INTENT. Actually, the courts have held that it is an ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CRIME and as such, it must be included in the indictment (thus presented to the grand jury).

As the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held on November 5, 2002 in the case United States of America v. Derrek E. Arrington:

We begin with s 111(a). As the words of that subsection make clear, to violate its proscription a defendant must: (1) forcibly; (2) assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with; (3) a designated federal officer6; (4) while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties. In addition, the defendant must have: (5) the "intent to do the acts" specified in the subsection. United States v. Klein-bart, 27 F.3d 586, 592 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 686 (1975)). Finally, as we indicated in United States v. Heid, 904 F.2d 69, 71 (D.C. Cir. 1990), the adverb "forcibly" in the first element of the offense modifies each of the prohibited acts specified in the second element: that is, a defendant does not violate the statute unless he forcibly assaults or forcibly resists or forcibly opposes, etc. As the parties agreed at oral argument, so far all of this is common ground between them.

USA v. Arrington http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200211/01-3059a.txt

See also U.S. v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671 (1975)

We are not to be understood as implying that the defendant's state of knowledge is never a relevant consideration under 111. The statute does require a criminal intent, and there may well be circumstances in which ignorance of the official status of the person assaulted or resisted negates the very existence of mens rea. For example, where an officer fails to identify himself or his purpose, his conduct in certain circumstances might reasonably be interpreted as the unlawful use of force directed either at the defendant or his property. In a situation of that kind, one might be justified in exerting an element of resistance, and an honest mistake of fact would not be consistent with criminal intent. 19

You must recognize that she doesn't have to prove anything, it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt and part of the element of the crime is CRIMINAL INTENT. I doubt they will be able to prove criminal intent.

:hi:

[Marie26]

314. You're nuts

No offense. :) Intent is not the same thing as motive. It is very simple - Did she intend the physical movement that she made? (hit, poke, whatever). If the answer is yes, than intent is present. That's it. The first element determines whether that movement was "assault" or not. I agree that the Const. provision is outdated at this point, but given the fact that she had only performed a misdeamenor & was on her way to vote, it'd be more prudent for the officer to wait to press charges. In a high-publicity case like this, they'd want to be sure to do everything correctly & avoid charges that they were interfering w/her Congressional duties. How do you think intent is lacking in this case?

The snippet you posted from Feola comes after the case's main holding - that "In order to incur criminal liability under 18 USCS 111--which makes it a criminal offense to forcibly assault, resist, or interfere with certain federal officers in the performance of their official duties-- the actor must entertain merely the criminal intent to do the acts therein specified, there being no requirement that he be aware of the official status of the person assaulted or resisted .

As I posted above, she doesn't need to know that the victim is a federal officer; intent simply refers to intent to do the action. Your snippet simply refers to a situation in which the person believes they are being assaulted by another private person, which I mention above as a possible (unsucessful) defense. This belief must be honest, reasonable & of good faith. The case posits a situation in which an officer "fails to identify himself" or his purpose. In Long, some officers entered a home at night w/o notifying the sleeping homeowner. So, in a case like that, the homeowner could reasonably believe he was shooting at an intruder. In this case, it would be extremely difficult for McKinney to convince a jury that she "honestly, reasonably" believed she was being assaulted by a private person at the time she hit the officer. I can't think of how she could have hit the officer w/o first turning around & seeing who it was. She's out of luck. At this point, I believe the prosecutor can prove all the elements of this crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

[merh]

315. Again, it goes back to the cops failure to arrest at that time.

If he did not find her actions were criminal, that her intent was to harm, that she was potential threat to his safety, the public's safety and/or her own safety, then criminal intent cannot be proven.

"Well, we the more we think about it the more we are convinced that she meant to hit me, hurt me and resist arrest." It won't fly.

Grab me from behind, I will try to protect myself and hitting, poking, striking, punching will probably be what I would do (anyone would do) if I am (they are) grabbed from behind.

If he was forcibly resisted or "assaulted" at the time of the incident, he would have arrested her on the spot, right then and there, to protect himself and those around him. The can arrest congress people and process them for CRIMINAL OFFENSE, they must release them to return to their duties after the arrest/detention. The fact that he didn't proves that he did not perceive any "criminal intent" on her part. She was grabbed, she reacted, realized he was a cop, showed her badge and they both went about their business. That's it - no criminal intent.

Repeating for the sake of clarity, the Supreme Court of the United States held in U.S. v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671 (1975)

We are not to be understood as implying that the defendant's state of knowledge is never a relevant consideration under 111. The statute does require a criminal intent, and there may well be circumstances in which ignorance of the official status of the person assaulted or resisted negates the very existence of mens rea. For example, where an officer fails to identify himself or his purpose, his conduct in certain circumstances might reasonably be interpreted as the unlawful use of force directed either at the defendant or his property. In a situation of that kind, one might be justified in exerting an element of resistance, and an honest mistake of fact would not be consistent with criminal intent. 19

If she did not hear him call out to him and he grabbed her from behind, his purpose and identity were unknown to her at the time HE USED FORCE and given she has had death threats against her and travels with body guards, I would say she is jumpy and her reaction merely instinctive, minus the requisite CRIMINAL INTENT.

THERE IS REASONABLE DOUBT and more importantly, the Criminal Intent is an element that must be found by the grand jury prior to indictment.

I am not nuts, I just believe that folks are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

You seem to have a problem with that and you refuse to hold the prosecution to the high standards it MUST MEET to have indictments returned and folks charged with crimes.

[Marie26]

316. We'll just have to wait to know for sure.

I shouldn't have said you're nuts, even in jest. You're not nuts & you've done some pretty good legal research. I just disagree w/ you on 2 points. The policeman may arrest someone on the spot w/probable cause, or seek an arrest warrant. Both paths are equally valid & it never "looks bad" for police to get an arrest warrant later. It's a non-issue at trial. Even if it could be mentioned, her status as a Congressman explains why the policeman would've felt more comfortable going to his supervisor first. You are correct that "self-defense" could create reasonable doubt in any assault case, however, I feel it would be almost impossible for her to raise such a defense if she had any chance to see the officer before she hit him. But neither of us knows exactly how this incident went down. I also believe that people are innocent until proven guilty, but I'm not a prosecutor here, just someone speculating, like you are. The law must wait before making determinations of guilt, but people certainly do not. Imagine if she'd never been charged, but a tabloid report came out - we couldn't speculate about what happened? Speculation is what message boards are all about. I was just offering my own analysis, which differs from yours in a couple respects. Peace! :hi:

[merh]

306. Interesting language

We begin with s 111(a). As the words of that subsection make clear, to violate its proscription a defendant must: (1) forcibly; (2) assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with; (3) a designated federal officer6; (4) while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties. In addition, the defendant must have: (5) the "intent to do the acts" specified in the subsection. United States v. Klein-bart, 27 F.3d 586, 592 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 686 (1975)). Finally, as we indicated in United States v. Heid, 904 F.2d 69, 71 (D.C. Cir. 1990), the adverb "forcibly" in the first element of the offense modifies each of the prohibited acts specified in the second element: that is, a defendant does not violate the statute unless he forcibly assaults or forcibly resists or forcibly opposes, etc. As the parties agreed at oral argument, so far all of this is common ground between them.

USA v. Arrington http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200211/01-3059a.txt

http://www.dcfpd.org/motions/appindex.htm

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

163. I'm heading home for the night

Please forgive my delay in replying to all future posts until tomorrow.

[Gabi Hayes]

167. hey mr. know it all..why should we believe your unsupported assertions,

above, say this, from The Hill

• In 1993, after she complained about being stopped by security guards, Capitol Police posted a photo of her on an office wall so that officers could remember who she was.

• In 1995, McKinney reportedly contacted the sergeant at arms after a white Capitol Police officer asked her to consent to a security check.

• In 1996 and 1998, she complained that White House security officials failed to recognize her and did not give her the same treatment as other members of Congress, at one time mistaking her 23-year-old white aide for the congresswoman.


for THIRTEEN YEARS they've known about problems she's had with the cops. You're telling us that they're not bothering anymore? give me a break.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/033006/news3.html

you provide NO corrobration for anything you assert, and your "irrefutable facts," are, in fact, not irrefutable, especially the ones culled from anoymous police/witness sources. But we should trust you because you're an insider. All those insiders on the hill have just done wonders for democracy in the last five years, haven't they?

I can't believe all the gullible responses here. what a joke. makes one wonder what the deal is.

you don't know ANYthing about what really happened, and you're spinning like the tornado that took Dorothy from Kansas to Oz. nice try. This faux reasonable interpretation that just happens to put McKinney in as bad a light as is "reasonably" possible, without having ANY of the legal facts in question available only serves to help further the Right Wing agenda: McKinney is just another leftwing screwball who must, at best, be ignored, at worst, drummed out of congress.

pathetic

[Gabi Hayes]

168. you're doing a HECKUVA job, bub! way to go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x841347

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

183. So tell me why she's the ONLY one who's having such problems?

Hmm? I've never heard a peep from any other black male or female Congressperson that they've had problems with the Capitol Police. Why is SHE the only one having problems? Maybe, just maybe, do you think it might have something to do with her? Or is she completely infallible in your eyes?

[Gabi Hayes]

169. oh yeah...the clever/cutesy sophistry of 'undisputable fact' number four

even if they're NOT required to recognize all 535 members of congress, it would seem, according to the Hill article, that they ARE required to recognize just ONE member of congress!

damn those pesky, reported 'facts'

haha haha hahaha

ha

EDIT: one last. since this poster relies on one of the basic tenets of propaganda here: reliance on authority voices, here's a question.

upon who's assessment of the situation do those here place their stake; this person's, or The Magistrate's? The Magsistrate stated, in no uncertain terms, that the officer in question, regardless of length of tenure, should be fired IMMEDIATELY, for gross incompetence.

you be the judge

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

184. I've given every other poster in this thread a full reply.

But quite frankly, I'm not even bothering with you. Your post is flat out laughable. Have a nice day.

[nolabels]

189. So book her already

They will only be able to convict her corporate media, a judge and or jury will never let the charges stick. That will be a great trial, one borne of sheer stupidity :thumbsup:

Btw if you actually believe that most cops are not racist then I have a nice bridge for sale that you need to buy

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

192. Most Capitol Police officers are black or latino.

but you can shove that :thumbsup: right back up your ass.

[nolabels]

196. Yea and a lot of them are that way out here in the L.A. basin too

The worst stories you get to hear is of one beating up or doing some other ghastly thing on one of his own race because of they perceive them as weaker for one reason or another. My evidence might be anecdotal, but I am not in the position to put all these folks on the couch.

People don't lash out because the feel strong, they mostly lash out because they fear others might sense a weakness they feel

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

198. Well that I don't doubt.

But... In this case, Rep. McKinney is now claiming that they're being racist because they didn't recognize her because she changed her hairstyle? So now, all of a sudden, changing your hairstyle is something that only black people do? C'mon...

[nolabels]

207. Digging deep and if I had to admit to it I would say I am racist..........

every so often, but mostly not, at least try not to be. My guess it's even kind of even a genetic thing with the outsider being identified (if you are not dismissive of evolution) that Humans evolved this way early on.

Our reactive takes charge before the logical can even get a grip. The crux is the police are expected to bust heads on blacks or latinos because the white folks with the bucks and or in the position in our top down pyramid push the money and resources that way (another words, they train them to be racist if they were not that way already). Racism is endemic and subliminal and in everybody's face at the same time. If you ask me anyone, who classifies anyone by race, regardless of the reason, is a racist by definition.

Attacking someone for racism seams inviable but also just as illogical as a war on terrorism and then again when was it that some other group of the humans decided not to pursue something that others perceived as impossible (or just plain stupid)then not do it? <same as throwing pearls to swine>

[Marie26]

234. It was three months ago... nt

[mwb970]

194. I agree totally. No other posts are required on this topic.

BTW, I saw a montage of McKinney sightings over the last year or so. In every single one she had a different hairstyle - and I mean really different - long, short, streaked, pulled back, frizzy - every variation you can think of. It was hard to believe they were all pictures of the same woman.

As you say, the police are not expected to remember all 435 House members, recognizing them on sight from any angle, quickly. That's why they have the lapel pin system - but oh, the pin was just too much trouble for McKinney to wear.

I'm sorry, but she comes across as arrogant and crazy. I'm sorry she's on "our side". I cringe whenever I see or hear her.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

205. Thank you

[Hosnon]

203. Bravo - Couldn't agree more. nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

204. Thank you

[zulchzulu]

223. Open and shut case...let's move on...

If she did what is alleged, she can't get off by saying it was "racist". That is a very lame excuse. If she struck the officer, she was wrong. Plain and simple.

This crap is distracting from what we need to focus on. She is making other Democrats look foolish if what appear to be the facts are true.

[Scott Lee_]

226. There is only one thing....

that the rethugs hate more than a vocal female liberal democrat: A BLACK vocal female liberal democrat. It's the new wrinkle of convolusion in modern GOP racism.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

240. I still fail to see how the GOP comes into this.

They do not control the Capitol Police.

[TexanDem]

229. They're both acting like children and media is egging it on.

[ShortnFiery]

244. Alleluia! Holy Shit! Where's the Tylenol?

Like adding another INANE exit ramp off of our D.C. beltway, this is all we need =

Yet another, "ANY police officer's authority is not to be questioned by good Citizens!" and "She should da been wearing her Congressional (Pledge) Pen" thread.

GOD BLESS *all* the men in authoritarian blue! Our DoublePlusGood Congress is going to pass legislation to the same sometime this week. Coincidence?

When a cop tells you to jump (or grabs you from behind) dammit Citizen, you SUBMIT! After all we live in a POST-911 world which allows cops to run wild and us to get implants and a national ID card in the near future.

Why is this cop able to assault you without fear of redress?

Because Citizen, you were not wearing your Congressional Pledge Pin!



http://161.58.5.90/animal/pledges.wav

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

245. Have fun on ignore.

I've had about enough of you already. God you're a lunatic.

[ShortnFiery]

301. Shit Vash, I'm not only a racist & a liar - but I get to be A LUNATIC too?

Whoa! :(

Let's chill out together? - come over for a "figurative" drink and let's unwind with the stuff that we can agree with? :toast:

[Jose Diablo]

250. Well, for my 2¢

I think the cops, all of them at that Capitol Building should know all the 'Peoples' representatives, on sight. And for some flat-foot to place their paws on our representative for any reason is beyond the pale. Forcing our representatives to wear some pin for ID, ha, what BS. Who do they think they are to force our representative to do anything whatsoever. Do the cops think they are guarding some kindergarden school or something?

I say that specific cop should be guarding hamburgers at Mickey D's. As for bringing charges, the police chief and his other politicos taking orders from Rove, should be canned.

First off, cops, any of them are part of the executive arm of government and to think that somehow any power they think they have over the legislative, is pure horse manure.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

257. You really want your tax dollars spent on memorizing people's faces?

That's odd - I'd rather spend it protecting people. Why is wearing a lapel pin so hard?

[SOS]

290. Absurd

My high school had about 500 students. From 9th grade forward, I knew the names and faces of each and every one.
It's now 30 years later and I could still name 95% of them by glancing at their photo.
And yet it's too much to expect a professional adult to accomplish what I managed to do at age 15?

[onenote]

268. have you ever gone through athe entrance to a House office building?

Its a tight space. If someone cut past everyone in line and went around the screening device, they could easily be past the cop before he even had a chance to get a good look at the person. Not saying that's what happened here, but it could be. Being able to recognize members is a goal, not a requirement. Anytime a cop is uncertain as to someone's identity the appropriate course is to stop them and ask them to identify themselves.

I'm sure Capitol Hill cops recognize on sight a lot of folks who aren't members, including former staffers who are now lobbyists. They smile at them, say hello. But they don't let them go around security. The practice of allowing members to go around security is an accomodation reached between the CHP and the Hill, its not enshrined in any law or rule as far as I know.

onenote

[mondo joe]

278. Even if they know every face there will ALWAYS be instances in

which people need to be stopped, because a guard looked away for a split second, the rep had his or her head turned away or was holding a cell phone to their face, or whatever.

Who do they think they are to force a representative to stop if they don'trecognize him or her? I'd say they think they are an officer doing their job.

An easier and more secure solution would be for the representatives to pass through the detector like everyone else.

[JPZenger]

252. Impossible to know 545 people instantly on-sight alone

Yes, it is impossible for every officer to instantly know 545 people on-sight alone. That not only includes 100 senators, 435 house members, but also non-voting representatives from Puerto Rico, D.C. etc. In addition, she had recently completely changed her hairstyle from cornrows to a wild afro, so she may not have been recognized for that reason.

The members should have computer-scannable badges with photos to identify them. A pin is too easily copied.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

258. I don't agree the pin is easily copied.

You'd have a really tough time getting your hands on one to copy it. Pictures aren't available and only MCs get them. And they change every year.

[ShortnFiery]

300. I think my eyes are bleeding ...

We will never know many things. Based on the way we were raised and who we choose to hang-out with now we form these very superficial "opinions" that were seemingly ready to die (by the pen - ego) for?

This is getting creepy, even for feisty ole' me. :(

[ShortnFiery]

303. Self-Delete for I MUST stop the bleeding ... yeah, really@

;)