It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

In The Sex- Neutral, Color-Blind society Democrats want so bad, Cynthia McKinney would Be In Jail!!

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   

This is not the first time McKinney has had an encounter with Capitol Hill police. When she first arrived in Congress in 1993, an officer failed to recognize her because she was new and not wearing the congressional pin. After she complained, police put pictures of McKinney up at each security checkpoint to ensure it would not happen again.

McKinney also once ran into problems at the White House. USA Today reported that when McKinney, who is African-American, and a young white aide arrived at a welcoming ceremony in May 1998 for then-Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi, the guard at the gate deferred to the aide as the person of authority. Once in the executive mansion, McKinney said, another guard tried to stop her until Rep. James Moran (D-Va.) stepped in.

"I am absolutely sick and tired of having to have my appearance at the White House validated by white people," McKinney wrote in a complaint to then-President Bill Clinton. "I don't need to be stopped or questioned because I happen to look like hired help."

The White House apologized to McKinney.

www.ajc.com...


This is an amazing woman. She has overcome so many obstacles. And still she stands for truth. The guard physically assaulted her first. Was he privileged to do so? Perhaps. But considering she's been working in these office buildings since 1993 I sincerely doubt that this guard failed to recognize her. Her reaction was not unreasonable. In fact, if law enforcement personnel attempt to physically restrain a citizen without reason or probable cause the citizen has the legal right to respond with physical force to oppose that action. He came up behind her and made physical contact first. Now you tell me who owes whom an apology?

Reminds me of when only two prominent democrats (Daschle and Leahy) were the targets of anthrax poisoning in October '01 when they opposed quick and uncritical passage of the misnamed Patriot Act. Sure people, it's all just a coincidence.

Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 10-4-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]




posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   

In fact, if law enforcement personnel attempt to physically restrain a citizen without reason or probable cause the citizen has the legal right to respond with physical force to oppose that action. He came up behind her and made physical contact first. Now you tell me who owes whom an apology?


Emphasis added by moi...

I think she does and has. The officer had both reasonable jurisdiction- the entrant had no ID, did not respond to attempts to verify ID and went passed security mesures. Ms. M went too far and was stopped by the only way a man with arms and hands can do so.... silly.

Here's a minority opinion........................................................

"The first injection of which comes from Ms. McKinney herself.



She has said she was a victim of racial profiling. It seems the pin she failed to wear, which allows legislators to circumvent the metal detectors, frequently goes unworn by members of Congress because they are known to Capitol police on sight. She questions why the cops find it so hard to remember her and why she is frequently assumed not to belong in hallways of power.

Those are good questions. But you know what? You still don't hit a cop. That's Black 101, something we instill in our boys for when they get pulled over for the crime of being. Heck, it's Common Sense 101. Even if the cop is rude, wrong or racist, stay cool and complain through channels."

Source


Mod Edit to remove Big Quote, fix link and add External Source tags.
Mod Note: Excessive Quote – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 10-4-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Tyriffic, you've also [like everyone else] forgot to mention a few points when you sum things up:
They don't need to go through the gates.
They don't have to wear the badges [they're meant to].
She was on the phone
The Officer grabbed her from behind.
And so far from the list of tenants of this group of buildings, she is the only black woman.
You also gloss over the facts that at least twice, white women have been mistaken by the security for her.
There is a picture of her in the security office.

It's not so one-sided, when we bother to bring all the points into it. :dw:



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint
Just saying what I think here...why isn't Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in Jail right now? The Left screams when a white male Republican Congressman takes a bribe. So why not scream when a black female Democratic Congresswoman decks a security guard at his station?
By the way, this isn't the first time McKinney has had run-ins with security. In fact, she's had FIVE different altercations with the security staff, all for the same reasons.
She then has the audacity to wave the Sex, AND the Race Cards!! Hmm...Rush the security guards to gain entry to the congressional offices..punch the one who tries to stop you...then scream sexism and racism...to win the sympathy vote??Wow! Look at that! There IS a conspiracy tangent here!!


"Rush the security gaurds"

That is a lie.

We need more people like Ms. McKinney, who have the temerity to demand that maggots like Rumsfeld explain why the Pentagon gives contracts to companies like Dyncorp, who traffic in child sex-slaves.

And who have the temerity to ask Rumsfeld and General Myers if the wargames which just so happen to be going on the morning of 9/11 in any way maybe mighta perhaps coulda "interfered" with the response(lack of) to the hijackings.

If you want to post a "lefties are hypocrites" thread, why not just do that?

You go, girl!



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tyriffic

Those are good questions. But you know what? You still don't hit a cop. That's Black 101, something we instill in our boys for when they get pulled over for the crime of being. Heck, it's Common Sense 101. Even if the cop is rude, wrong or racist, stay cool and complain through channels."



I have heard that she "hit" the guard but I have seen no evidence of harm done. She spun around in response to being physically grabbed or prodded. Under the known facts I find no fault with her actions. She is a small and middle-aged, slightly over weight black woman. She presents no threat to the building security. I have not heard that she ignored repeated verbal requests to stop or show ID. And, as was said here, the members are allowed to walk around the security WITHOUT STOPPING.

I believe that after 13 years in Congress she is entitled to expect to be known by security well enough not to have a special pin on her lapel or a chip in her arm or whatever. For heaven sake they have her photo posted at every security check point to avoid this very scenario because it's happened before. Oh, but all those black people do look alike and it's so hard to tell them apart, right? As she indicated in 1993, she is a member of Congress. It's not too much to expect that she not be treated like a (very well dressed) terrorist in the Halls of Congress by anyone.

Do you suppose they would have stopped that strutting peacock Tom "the hammer" Delay before he resigned in disgrace? Of course not. This is either racial profiling or, even worse, it's based upon her opposition politics.

Needless to say if she had shot a load of birdshot into someone's face I might feel differently about the fate of the poor guard. But the guy wants to press charges!!! What a puss. C'mon man, she's probably somebody's grandma. Toughen up a little bro. What, did she bruise your little nipple with the terribly sharp corner of her monstrous cell-phone? Poor, poor man. I hope they had an aid car nearby with a nice Snoopy blanket for comfort. And I hope you get therapy for the PTSD. Like the thread poster says, she oughta be in jail for this horrible assault. I mean, it could have been an eye!

For those of you who think the cops don't make mistakes guess what, I've got news for you, you're WRONG. It's the sheeple in this society who let the cops do whatever the H they feel like who are creating the environment necessary to bring about the police state they seek to have in the old 'free' US of A. If a member of Congress isn't immune from this type of harassment none of us are. You people are backing the wrong horse in this one.

I'll bet the entire 'press charges' issue is being pushed HARD by the neocons for it serves many purposes in their ruthless agenda.

I SMELL A RAT!




posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Folks, here are a few items about Ms. McKinney to keep in consideration.

Here is the reprint of her apology in its entirety:

usatoday.com

MCKINNEY SPEAKS

Rep. Cynthia McKinney's statement to the House:

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I come before this body to personally express, again, my sincere regret about the encounter with the Capitol Hill Police. I appreciate my colleagues who are standing with me, who love this institution and who love this country.

There should not have been any physical contact in this incident. I have always supported law enforcement, and will be voting for H. Res. 756 expressing my gratitude and appreciation to the professionalism and dedication of the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police. I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all and I regret its escalation. And I apologize.


There are two more things to bring to the plate in this issue.

First of all, is an interesting mediamatters.orgreport that discloses that a lot of news time is being spent on the McKinney issue rather than Mr. Bush's wiretaps or Mr. DeLay's indictment. This says a lot about why people are frothing at the mouth over Ms. McKinney's incident.

And of course, Greg Palast's article, A Blow For Us All: McKinney Strikes Back


The good ol' boy cracker-crats of the Republican party are having themselves a regular hootenanny over allegations that Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney landed a punch on a security guard at the Capitol.

Seems that last week, the congresswoman went around the Capitol metal detector, a congressional privilege, and was grabbed by a guard. The congresswoman responded to this assault by, report has it, applying a fist to the offender.

The Republican speaker Dennis Hastert, and the press, have gone wild. There was even a verbal assault on McKinney carried on Fox TV by ... Tom DeLay.

That crazy congresswoman is at it again. Or should I say, Black congresswoman. Yes, I should say it, because, don't kid yourself, "Black" is what it's all about.


Make of these new items what you will. But, I tend to think that this was a concerted effort to attack the Dems and get Ms. McKinney at the same time.









[edit on 10-4-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
A couple of points that have been brought up need clarification:

1. She has not served consecutively since 1992. She was defeated in 2002. This is brought up to correct any impression that she has been in office continuously since winning her first term, and thus implying that the police should know her as a "fixture".

2. The picture in the Capitol Police office was taken in 1993. That was thirteen years ago. Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I look significantly different than I did 13 years ago.

And she had no excuse for hitting the officer. What if a mother carrying an infant had grabbed her for some reason, and she turned around and struck the child in her rage?



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
And she had no excuse for hitting the officer. What if a mother carrying an infant had grabbed her for some reason, and she turned around and struck the child in her rage?


That's cheap JsoBecky and you know it.

I can do the same thing, what if grabbed her? I'm nearly 6'2 - 6'3 in my boots, I'm about 160lbs and most of the time I have my face covered up by my bandana. If I was to grab a middle-aged woman from behind and she was to strike me, the Police would hold me in the wrong unless I was doing the action to save her from harm.

You deliberatly tried there to distort the security guard into a woman with a child, when it is more than likely he is nearer to my build if not bigger. You go grab middle aged women from behind and see what happens...I'm sure the Police will have something to say about it.

Furthermore, no article has said when the photo was taken but rather that one was placed up in the security office then. Logically they'll have changed it over-time, just like her ID card photo. Also, I've still yet to find another black female resident of these offices...



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
A couple of points that have been brought up need clarification:

1. She has not served consecutively since 1992. She was defeated in 2002. This is brought up to correct any impression that she has been in office continuously since winning her first term, and thus implying that the police should know her as a "fixture".


Yeah, there are so many well dressed, black congresswomen walking around ... I can see how they might forget she was there. I see no evidence that she was asked to provide ID. She acted like what she was - a member of Congress.


2. The picture in the Capitol Police office was taken in 1993. That was thirteen years ago. Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I look significantly different than I did 13 years ago.


If they failed to update her photo between the time she was first elected 13 years ago and the time she was re-elected last year that's their mistake, not hers.


McKinney staff members said she had not been recognized at least once before as a member of Congress.

Her office released a video from a documentary that shows a white officer demanding identification from her as she entered the Capitol grounds with a film crew upon her return to Congress in 2005. She had lost a reelection bid in 2002.



by jsobecky And she had no excuse for hitting the officer. What if a mother carrying an infant had grabbed her for some reason, and she turned around and struck the child in her rage?


Hitting the officer? Poking him with a cell phone is not hitting him with her hand or fist. The fraud being perpetrated here is amazing. The thread poster even says she "decked" him. C'mon people. Where's the photo of the man's wounds? I'll bet Karl Rove will produce them soon.


The unidentified officer wants to press assault charges against McKinney, who allegedly poked him with her cellphone Wednesday morning as she tried to bypass a metal detector while walking into a House office building, said Capitol Police sources familiar with the incident. Members of Congress are not required to pass through such magnetometers.


When is poking with a cellphone hitting someone? If she stabbed him with pen would you also say she hit him?

And for Pete's sake, how do you make that jump of illogic to her opposing his offensive physical contact and her reasonable response to it with your hypothetical of striking an infant in rage? What a leap! Why not just ask what would happen if she triggered a nuclear device in a school yard??? The hooey around here is really stinking bad.




posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium


That's cheap JsoBecky and you know it.
:
You deliberatly tried there to distort the security guard into a woman with a child, when it is more than likely he is nearer to my build if not bigger. You go grab middle aged women from behind and see what happens...I'm sure the Police will have something to say about it.

Cheap? You're wrong. I said that in rebuttal to the posters that have tried to condone her actions as acting out of impulse. If we are to accept that she acted out of impulse, then my point is perfectly valid.

Or, maybe you're trying to say that she recognized the person as an officer before she struck him? If so, how does that make it any less wrong to strike someone?


Furthermore, no article has said when the photo was taken but rather that one was placed up in the security office then. Logically they'll have changed it over-time, just like her ID card photo. Also, I've still yet to find another black female resident of these offices...

It has been written that it was posted in 1993. Thirteen years ago. So it has to be at least that old. Or are you trying to help me make my case?



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by seattlelaw
When is poking with a cellphone hitting someone?

It is a case of battery. It is against the law. As much as it may dismay you, you cannot strike another person with anything.


battery n. the actual intentional striking of someone, with intent to harm, or in a "rude and insolent manner" even if the injury is slight. Negligent or careless unintentional contact is not battery no matter how great the harm. Battery is a crime and also the basis for a lawsuit as a civil wrong if there is damage. It is often coupled with "assault" (which does not require actual touching) in "assault and battery."

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Emphasis added.


If she stabbed him with pen would you also say she hit him?

I'd say she stabbed him. What are you trying to do, play word games here?

She struck the officer with her hand, in which she was holding a cell phone. That is against the law. How can you condone that?


And for Pete's sake, how do you make that jump of illogic to her opposing his offensive physical contact and her reasonable response to it with your hypothetical of striking an infant in rage? What a leap!

Either she lashed out in reactive mode, or she knew who she was striking. There are those who say she acted reactively. That was the point I was making.

Either way, she struck another person. How can you condone that?



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Tyriffic, you've also [like everyone else] forgot to mention a few points when you sum things up:
They don't need to go through the gates.
They don't have to wear the badges [they're meant to].
She was on the phone
The Officer grabbed her from behind.
And so far from the list of tenants of this group of buildings, she is the only black woman.
You also gloss over the facts that at least twice, white women have been mistaken by the security for her.
There is a picture of her in the security office.

It's not so one-sided, when we bother to bring all the points into it. :dw:




Uh, Odium I did not gloss over any facts. It seems you are the glosser here.

She does have to wear her pin like every other member. This idents her as a member and not a nut job.

She did hit the officer. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.....Do you need one more Wrong?

She then called him and all Cap police racist for not reckognizing her.

There have been both white men and women member not reckognized and delayed (no pun intended) by Cap police without racism or gender bias being dumped into the matter by said members.

What the blank does it matter if she is on the phone...I suppose in your security protocol, anyone on the phone must be legit?

FYI....I have been a member of the security departments of two banking institutions, one national and one regional and no one is exempt from detention in sensitive areas- I think the SEAT OF OUR GOVERNMENT AFTER 911 is on this list.

Do we know how long the officer was assigned to this post? He may have never seen Ms. M. before?
And the idea that pictures should be memorized is valid, yet these guys and gals see thousands of people a day. The blur becomes anesthesizing to some degree and one has to fight complacency. I would rather have an officer who stopped everyone than one who said:" Hey, buddy!! Go on through!!!!" just because he or she saw this person yesterday....

Bad security. And, if your knowledge was experiental, you would not argue so hard against good security



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky


battery n. the actual intentional striking of someone, with intent to harm, or in a "rude and insolent manner" even if the injury is slight. Negligent or careless unintentional contact is not battery no matter how great the harm. Battery is a crime and also the basis for a lawsuit as a civil wrong if there is damage. It is often coupled with "assault" (which does not require actual touching) in "assault and battery."


Well nothing's as simple as it seems, is it? Your definition actually doesn't contain the three required elements for criminal battery. These include (1) the conduct itself, i.e., touching, (2) the mens rea or mental state of the defendant, and (3) the necessary harmful result to the person.

Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Ed. West Publishing.

From what I have seen here none of the elements of the crime have been clearly established. She is alleged to have "poked" him with her cell phone, but this is not admitted. But the mens rea requirement - that she intended harm - is lacking. In addition I have seen no statement wherein the "victim" officer has claimed he was harmed in any way. Like I said, those cell phones sure are sharp!

Additionally, what might technically otherwise be a battery may be justified. Self defense comes to mind here. Try and grab me from behind and you might find yourself in a world of pain. Remember, she was armed with a cell phone, the cop was probably armed with pepper spray, nightstick, gun, etc. And he had back-up as well. Poor wittle guy. She oughta be ashamed.


By seattlelaw If she stabbed him with pen would you also say she hit him?


By jsobeckyI'd say she stabbed him. What are you trying to do, play word games here?


It's all in the details, my dear. State of mind, what struck whom and when, who struck whom first, who made the initial offensive physical contact, was anyone privilged? Etc.., etc. It's just not as simple as you people make it out to be. I mean, we've got to earn those exhorbitant fees don't we?


By seattlelawAnd for Pete's sake, how do you make that jump of illogic to her opposing his offensive physical contact and her reasonable response to it with your hypothetical of striking an infant in rage? What a leap!


By jsobecky Either she lashed out in reactive mode, or she knew who she was striking. There are those who say she acted reactively. That was the point I was making.


And the point I am making is that this guy completely over-reacted. This is a member of Congress, not some tourist bum off the street. I am insulted for her that this guard tried to manhandle her and I applaud her opposition to his behavior. There is nothing I've seen that says she was running away or refused to provide ID or refused to stop when asked. From what I've read the guy just reached out and tried to manhandle her. That is always wrong under the present circumstances. Let's not lose our human dignity in the rush for the suffocating blanket of police security. Whaddya say?



Either way, she struck another person. How can you condone that?


Are you serious? We've bombed the H out of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. We're zapping them with bullets and missiles. We're water-boarding them to near drowning, we're stacking them naked like cordwood for giggles. We're raping them, we're killing them in custody with sacks over their heads while their arms and legs are bound. We're isolating them and humiliating them. We've completely destroyed what little infrastructure they had following 10 years of unethical sanctions that cost the lives of 500,000 children. We've irradiated their homeland with enough 'depleted' uranium to ensure that babies are still born or born grossly deformed through permanent and genocidal damage to their genetic information.

And you're worried about an armed guard getting poked with a cell phone? Are you kidding me? Is this some kind of sick joke? Hon, you've got to work on your priorities here. Why not voice some concern for those who aren't packing guns for a change?


[edit on 10-4-2006 by seattlelaw]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Tyriffic, I am afraid you do gloss over them once more.

They are "meant" to wear the tags. I've already sourced a link, with this and nobody has found evidence to challenge it. Let alone the fact, seh publically states she doesn't wear the pin. If she had to they'd not allow her to hold office there.
They only have offices for just over 200 people. I've already sourced this, by offering the name of the building.
The fact she was on the phone, means she ran the risk of not hearing the man. How hard is that for people to understand?
These guys and girls, don't see thousands of people a day. These officers are rather small, with only a half-dozen conference rooms and a few hundred offices. This is less people than my Law teacher has per-day and she is able to know all of our names.
If the length of his service is going to be used, you've got to display that he was knew to the job. None of the papers have yet to make this claim about him which if he was, they more than likely would.

It's rather simple, if you were grabbed by the arm while on the phone - more than likely not hearing the man - you do run the risk of a knee-jerk reaction such as this. It caused the man no level of harm, however she should have never made it an issue of race - although it could be.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Cheap? You're wrong. I said that in rebuttal to the posters that have tried to condone her actions as acting out of impulse. If we are to accept that she acted out of impulse, then my point is perfectly valid.


Actully no, they're different. The size of the woman and the security guard are relative to one another, along with the level of force placed upon her. However, if this was to happen outside, no court would hold her liable even if it was a mother holding her child. It could be classed as battery, by grabbing someone from behind.


Originally posted by jsobecky
Or, maybe you're trying to say that she recognized the person as an officer before she struck him? If so, how does that make it any less wrong to strike someone?


Where did I say that she recognized the person? Depending on the instance, it depends on if it is O.K. or not. A crime is not always a crime, it is dependent on culture, era and wider social settings - including the actions of all parties involved.


Originally posted by jsobecky
It has been written that it was posted in 1993. Thirteen years ago. So it has to be at least that old. Or are you trying to help me make my case?


Why does it have to be that old? All it means is 13 years ago they first started having a picture of her. Does it in no way mean, they kept the same one from 13 years ago.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Those of you who are defending Cynthia McKinney, you haven't got a clue.

I'm from Georgia.

She is a psychopath. I don't give a rat's behind what her views are of this administration - she is a plain nut case.

And I will prelude my next comment with this - I am not racist... not even close. But, there is a reason she keeps getting re-elected in her district... figure it out.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Please, any such claims you are going to make back up with some form of evidence. Just because you like to call names, make out she gets voted into power "because" of "something" come out and say it. Stop hiding behind such childish games.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeeTwin60
Those of you who are defending Cynthia McKinney, you haven't got a clue.

I'm from Georgia.

She is a psychopath. I don't give a rat's behind what her views are of this administration - she is a plain nut case.

And I will prelude my next comment with this - I am not racist... not even close. But, there is a reason she keeps getting re-elected in her district... figure it out.




I guess you're not from her district? Are you white? What a shock if you are. Like the man said, why don't you bring more to this gun fight then a butter knife or go home.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prophesy"Rush the security gaurds"

That is a lie.

We need more people like Ms. McKinney, who have the temerity to demand that maggots like Rumsfeld explain why the Pentagon gives contracts to companies like Dyncorp, who traffic in child sex-slaves.

And who have the temerity to ask Rumsfeld and General Myers if the wargames which just so happen to be going on the morning of 9/11 in any way maybe mighta perhaps coulda "interfered" with the response(lack of) to the hijackings.

If you want to post a "lefties are hypocrites" thread, why not just do that?

You go, girl!


Gee, it seems to me, if she didn't stop at the security barriers...if the security guard had to catch up with her in order to stop her, in my book, that qualifies as a failed end-run (in football terms).

As for that swipe at DynaCorp Where's your links?

As for posting a thread that calls Lefties Hypocrits....gee, I thought I did.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by seattlelaw

Originally posted by jsobecky



battery n. the actual intentional striking of someone, with intent to harm, or in a "rude and insolent manner" even if the injury is slight. Negligent or careless unintentional contact is not battery no matter how great the harm. Battery is a crime and also the basis for a lawsuit as a civil wrong if there is damage. It is often coupled with "assault" (which does not require actual touching) in "assault and battery."


Well nothing's as simple as it seems, is it? Your definition actually doesn't contain the three required elements for criminal battery. These include (1) the conduct itself, i.e., touching, (2) the mens rea or mental state of the defendant, and (3) the necessary harmful result to the person.


Her state of mind and the actual amount of pain inflicted have nothing to do with whether the act was committed.


From what I've read the guy just reached out and tried to manhandle her.

He called for her to stop three times, and then put his hand on her shoulder to stop her. That's not manhandling.

Now I'm beginning to understand...you suffer from the inability to comprehend what you read.


you've got to work on your priorities here

And you need to learn to stay on topic and stop sidetracking the issues.

And keep your "hon's" and my "dears" to yourself. They are condescending, this isn't the Dating Game, and I'm quite happy with my lovely lady friend, thank you.



originally posted by Odium
However, if this was to happen outside,


If, if, if. But it didn't. Sorry, Odium, but you lose this one. She struck the officer, and she was wrong. Even she knows it; her vague apology was given because the heat was on, from eyewitnesses and the grand jury.



A crime is not always a crime, it is dependent on culture, era and wider social settings -

Yeah, I know. Pedophilia may be condoned in some cultures. But this is the United States of America, and battery is a crime.

I'm outta here. There's nothing left to debate. McKinney was wrong for striking the officer.




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join